Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41246014›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025

Optimal fluid management strategies in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Umar G Adamu, Blessing Muponda, Nqoba Tsabedze

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Umar G AdamuDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Blessing MupondaDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nqoba TsabedzeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Fluid restriction is frequently recommended in heart failure (HF) management to prevent volume overload and improve clinical outcomes. However, the evidence supporting this practice remains limited. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of fluid restriction vs. liberal fluid intake on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in individuals with HF. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted through April 27, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing restrictive and liberal fluid strategies in HF. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Four RCTs with a total of 747 patients were included, of whom 378 (50.6%) were randomized to liberal fluid intake. There were no significant differences between groups regarding all-cause mortality (RR: 1.71; 95% CI: 0.37-3.72; Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, fluid restriction significantly reduced total fluid intake but did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with HF. Adherence and KCCQ clinical summary scores were higher with liberal fluid intake. These findings support an individualized approach to fluid management in patients with HF. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD420251048914.

Indexed as

fluid restrictionheart failurehospitalizationliberal fluid intakemortalityquality of life

Identifiers

PMID41246014
PMCPMC12615477

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.