Vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in initial resuscitation of burn injuries: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to current guidelines, initial burn resuscitation should be performed with fluids alone. The aims of the study were to review the frequency of use of vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in initial burn resuscitation, and assess the benefits and harms of adding such drugs to fluids. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, UpToDate, and SveMed+ through 3 December 2021. The search included studies on critically ill burn patients receiving vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in addition to fluids within 48 h after burn injury. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1058 unique publications that were screened for inclusion. After assessing 115 publications in full text, only two retrospective cohort studies were included. One study found that 16 out of 52 (31%) patients received vasopressor(s). Factors associated with vasopressor use were increasing age, burn depth, and % total body surface area (TBSA) burnt. Another study observed that 20 out of 111 (18%) patients received vasopressor(s). Vasopressor use was associated with increasing age, Baux score, and %TBSA burnt in addition to more frequent dialysis treatment and increased mortality. Study quality assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was considered good in one study, but uncertain due to limited description of methods in the other. CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed that there is a lack of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of using vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in addition to fluids during early resuscitation of patients with major burns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".