MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115598336

Renal outcomes and mortality following hydroxyethyl starch resuscitation of critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2009· article· en· W2115598336 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryan Zarychanski, Alexis F. Turgeon, Dean Fergusson, Paul C. Hébert, Sean M. Bagshaw, Danny Monsour, Lauralyn McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHydroxyethyl starchRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioRenal replacement therapyMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineIntensive care unitResuscitationConfidence intervalAcute kidney injurySepsisInternal medicineEmergency medicineAnesthesia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is a type of colloid fluid that is commonly used for volume resuscitation of patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Data regarding the renal consequences of HES are conflicting. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of HES solutions on renal outcomes and mortality among critically ill patients requiring acute volume resuscitation. Data sources: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials and the SCOPUS database) from 1950 to 2008. Conference proceedings and grey literature sources were searched from 2002 to 2007. Study selection: We included only randomized controlled trials of acute volume resuscitation of critically ill patients comparing HES fluid with an alternative resuscitation fluid. Data synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and evaluated trial quality. Random-effects models were used for all summary measures of effect. Results: Twenty-two trials (n = 1865 patients) were included. Patients who received HES were more likely to have received renal replacement therapy (odds ratio [OR] 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–2.96, I 2 9.5%, n = 749). There was no difference in overall mortality (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85–1.34, n = 1657). However, in trials that included patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, in high-quality and multicentre trials, and in trials with adequate allocation concealment, there was a trend toward increased risk of death in association with HES. Limitations: Data regarding adverse events, including renal outcomes, were not reported in the majority of published randomized trials. Considerable clinical and methodologic heterogeneity existed among trials. Conclusions: The use of HES for acute volume resuscitation of critically ill patients, and in particular those with severe sepsis and septic shock, appeared to be associated with increased use of renal replacement therapy. Further randomized controlled trials evaluating clinically important end points are required to examine the efficacy and safety of HES fluids for critically ill patients.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.033
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen medicineSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207