MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098340090 · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.430

Association of Hydroxyethyl Starch Administration With Mortality and Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients Requiring Volume Resuscitation

2013· review· en· W2098340090 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Zarychanski, Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Alexis F. Turgeon, Brett L. Houston, Lauralyn McIntyre, John C. Marshall, Dean Fergusson

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroxyethyl starchMedicineAcute kidney injuryResuscitationRandomized controlled trialClinical trialIntensive care medicineRelative riskPopulationEmergency medicineInternal medicineAnesthesiaConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Hydroxyethyl starch is commonly used for volume resuscitation yet has been associated with serious adverse events, including acute kidney injury and death. Clinical trials of hydroxyethyl starch are conflicting. Moreover, multiple trials from one investigator have been retracted because of scientific misconduct. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of hydroxyethyl starch use with mortality and acute kidney injury. DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Global Health, HealthStar, Scopus, Web of Science, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to October 2012), reference lists of relevant articles, and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials comparing hydroxyethyl starch with other resuscitation fluids in critically ill patients receiving acute volume resuscitation. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted trial-level data including population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and funding sources. Risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias tool; the strength of evidence was adjudicated using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: We included 38 eligible trials comparing hydroxyethyl starch to crystalloids, albumin, or gelatin. The majority of trials were categorized as having an unclear risk or high risk of bias. For the 10,880 patients in studies contributing mortality data, the risk ratio (RR) for death among patients randomized to receive hydroxyethyl starch was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.14; I2, 0%; absolute risk [AR], 1.20%; 95% CI, -0.26% to 2.66%). This summary effect measure included results from 7 trials performed by an investigator whose subsequent research had been retracted because of scientific misconduct. When we excluded these 7 trials that involved 590 patients, hydroxyethyl starch was found to be associated with increased mortality among 10,290 patients (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.17; I2, 0%; AR, 1.51%; 95% CI, 0.02% to 3.00%), increased renal failure among 8725 patients (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.47; I2, 26%; AR, 5.45%; 95% CI, 0.44% to 10.47%), and increased use of renal replacement therapy among 9258 patients (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.50; I2, 0%; AR, 3.12%; 95% CI, 0.47% to 5.78%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In critically ill patients requiring acute volume resuscitation, use of hydroxyethyl starch compared with other resuscitation solutions was not associated with a decrease in mortality. Moreover, after exclusion of 7 trials performed by an investigator whose research has been retracted because of scientific misconduct, hydroxyethyl starch was associated with a significant increased risk of mortality and acute kidney injury. Clinical use of hydroxyethyl starch for acute volume resuscitation is not warranted due to serious safety concerns.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations650
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207