↓ Skip to main content

What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
79 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1796-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Toscani, Hollmann D. Aya, Dimitra Antonakaki, Davide Bastoni, Ximena Watson, Nish Arulkumaran, Andrew Rhodes, Maurizio Cecconi

Abstract

The fluid challenge is considered the gold standard for diagnosis of fluid responsiveness. The objective of this study was to describe the fluid challenge techniques reported in fluid responsiveness studies and to assess the difference in the proportion of 'responders,' (PR) depending on the type of fluid, volume, duration of infusion and timing of assessment. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase were performed for studies using the fluid challenge as a test of cardiac preload with a description of the technique, a reported definition of fluid responsiveness and PR. The primary outcome was the mean PR, depending on volume of fluid, type of fluids, rate of infusion and time of assessment. A total of 85 studies (3601 patients) were included in the analysis. The PR were 54.4% (95% CI 46.9-62.7) where <500 ml was administered, 57.2% (95% CI 52.9-61.0) where 500 ml was administered and 60.5% (95% CI 35.9-79.2) where >500 ml was administered (p = 0.71). The PR was not affected by type of fluid. The PR was similar among patients administered a fluid challenge for <15 minutes (59.2%, 95% CI 54.2-64.1) and for 15-30 minutes (57.7%, 95% CI 52.4-62.4, p = 1). Where the infusion time was ≥30 minutes, there was a lower PR of 49.9% (95% CI 45.6-54, p = 0.04). Response was assessed at the end of fluid challenge, between 1 and 10 minutes, and >10 minutes after the fluid challenge. The proportions of responders were 53.9%, 57.7% and 52.3%, respectively (p = 0.47). The PR decreases with a long infusion time. A standard technique for fluid challenge is desirable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 18 11%
Student > Master 18 11%
Other 17 11%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Other 44 28%
Unknown 34 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 40 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#708,365
of 22,180,330 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#531
of 5,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,137
of 290,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,180,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 290,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.