ArticleEuropean burn journal2025
Characterisation of Fluid Administration in Burn Shock-A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.
Article in European burn journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Evaporation to Edema: A Scoping Review of Physical and Biological Determinants of Early Fluid Distribution in Burn Patients.European burn journal · 2026Review
- Detection of Liver Dysfunction in Severe Burn Injury with Bedside Measurement of Perfusion.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFinding the optimal amount of fluid is a major challenge in burn shock. Although there is evidence that a restrictive fluid regime is beneficial, current practice shows fluid resuscitation still well above recommendations. The extent of trauma, pre-hospital care and the patient's pre-existing conditions influence requirements.
methodsWe analysed outcomes and influencing factors of fluid regimes in a retrospective cohort study including 90 severely burnt patients resuscitated with the same protocol.
resultsThe mean amount of fluids in the first 24 h was 6.5 mL/kg bodyweight (BW)/% total burn surface area (TBSA). A total of 14% received restrictive (<4), 34% received liberal (4-6) and 51% received excessive (>6) mL/kgBW/%TBSA fluids. There was no difference regarding mortality, age, complications, organ failure, inhalation injury or full-thickness burns in the groups. Patients with excessive fluid therapy had a significantly lower ABSI score (9 vs. 11,
conclusionsIndividualised, timely therapy monitoring is as essential as identifying patients with a higher or lower fluid requirement. Excessive fluid resuscitation had fewer deleterious consequences in complications than expected but seems to influence wound healing. Awareness of circumstances that prompt deviations from recommended fluid rates remains elementary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.