SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Normal saline vs. lactated ringer's for fluid resuscitation in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intravenous fluid resuscitation is fundamental in acute pancreatitis (AP), but optimal crystalloid selection remains debated. This meta-analysis compares lactated ringer's (LR) and normal saline (NS) for outcomes in AP. Methods: We conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and WanFang (Until July 2025) for studies comparing LR and NS in AP. Primary outcomes included mortality, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), ICU transfer, pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Random- or fixed-effects models were used based on heterogeneity ( Results: Overall mortality did not differ between LR and NS (OR = 1.020, 95% CI: 0.865-1.359, Conclusion: LR and NS demonstrate comparable mortality and safety profiles, with no significant difference in overall LOS. Although LR may shorten LOS in certain subgroups, its association with prolonged LOS in patients with SAP requires further validation. Therefore, based on current evidence, no preference can be recommended for either fluid, and larger standardized trials are warranted. Systematic review registration: CRD420251112118.
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.