SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Is restriction of intravenous fluid beneficial for septic shock in ICU patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Strategy for Initial Resuscitation in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2026Article
- Passive leg raising and microvascular skin blood flow to predict peripheral tissue perfusion fluid responsiveness.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Balancing Chloride and Glucose in Critical Illness: A 10 Year Study on Diluent Strategies and ICU Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate how restrictive fluid resuscitation strategies, compared to conventional approaches, affect key clinical outcomes in adult patients with septic shock in the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary outcomes of our analysis included acute kidney injury incidence and ICU mortality, while the secondary outcomes encompassed mechanical ventilation requirement and ischemic event incidence. By comparing the efficacy and safety of the two strategies, this study provides evidence-based support for optimizing fluid management in patients with septic shock.
methodsA systematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and CNKI databases was performed from inception to March 2024. Randomized controlled trials on restrictive fluid resuscitation for septic shock were included. Primary outcomes included acute kidney injury incidence and ICU mortality; secondary outcomes covered mechanical ventilation requirement and ischemic events. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3).
resultsFive randomized controlled trials were included in this study, comprising 1972 patients. Compared to the conventional fluid resuscitation group, the restrictive fluid resuscitation group displayed no difference in acute kidney injury incidence (risk ratio (RR), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.07; P = 0.29; I
conclusionAlthough restrictive fluid resuscitation did not show superiority over conventional protocols in terms of clinical outcomes, it may represent a safe alternative for ICU patients with septic shock.
trial registrationThe study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024515869).
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.