Physiological changes after fluid bolus therapy in sepsis: a systematic review of the contemporary literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Fluid bolus therapy (FBT) is a ubiquitous intervention in intensive care. However, the physiological effects in the critically ill are poorly understood. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the contemporary literature to determine the current practice and effect of FBT in the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Methods: We interrogated the MEDLINE, CENTRAL and EMBASE electronic reference databases using a combination of terms to define a set of records of studies of fluid administration in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. To achieve contemporary relevance, results were limited to English language studies in adults between 2010 and 2013. Results: We identified 22 prospective observational studies, four retrospective observational studies, two quasi-experimental studies, and five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 41 boluses in total. No RCT compared FBT with alternative interventions. The median fluid bolus was 500 ml (range: 100 to 1,000 ml) administered over 30 minutes (range: 10 to 60 minutes) and 0.9% sodium chloride solution was the most commonly administered. Although 17 studies describe the temporal course of physiological changes after FBT in 31 patient groups, only three studies describe the physiological changes at 60 minutes, and only one study beyond this point (Figure 1). No studies related the physiological changes after FBT with clinically relevant outcomes. Conclusion: There is a need for obtaining randomised controlled evidence for the physiological effects of FBT in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock beyond the period immediately following its administration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".