↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s175080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chao Liu, Zhi Mao, Pan Hu, Xin Hu, Hongjun Kang, Jie Hu, Zhifang Yang, Penglin Ma, Feihu Zhou

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different fluids on critically ill patients who need fluid resuscitation through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Electronic databases were searched up to March 2018 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of different fluids in critically ill patients. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were the incident of acute kidney injury (AKI) and risk of receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT). A Bayesian NMA was conducted, and the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We deemed 49 trials eligible, including 40,910 participants. The quality of evidence was rated as moderate in most comparisons. There was no significant difference among resuscitation fluids in mortality. NMA at the 9-node level showed the most effective fluid was balanced crystalloid (BC) (80.79%, the ranking of resuscitation fluid based on cumulative probability plots and surface under the cumulative ranking curves [SUCRAs]). NMA at the 10-node level showed that the most effective fluid was Plasma-Lyte (77.52%). Results of sensitivity analyses in mortality did not reveal any significant changes in the findings for primary outcomes. High-molecular-weight hetastarch (H-HES) was associated with an increased incidence of AKI when compared with gelatin (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.19-0.94), low-molecular-weight hetastarch (L-HES; OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.30-0.87), BC (OR, 0.55; 95% CrI, 0.34-0.88), and normal saline (OR, 0.56; 95% CrI, 0.34-0.93). Meanwhile, H-HES was also associated with an increased risk of receiving RRT when compared with BC (OR, 0.51; 95% CrI, 0.27-0.93) and normal saline (OR, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.24-0.96). BCs, especially the Plasma-Lyte, are presumably the best choice for most critically ill patients who need fluid resuscitation. Meanwhile, the use of H-HES was associated with an increased incidence of AKI and risk of receiving RRT. PROSPERO (CRD42017072728).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 20%
Other 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,498,682
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#313
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,514
of 345,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#8
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.