SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Optimal fluid management strategies in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The first 24-h negative fluid balance is related to lower short-term mortality but higher AKI progression in critically ill heart failure: a retrospective cohort study.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.