Intravenous Fluid Administration and the Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Sickle Cell Disease Patients Hospitalized for Vaso-Occlusive Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) is the leading cause of hospitalization in sickle cell disease (SCD). Intravenous fluid (IVF) administration is the usual practice during VOC episodes to slow the sickling process. In the absence of an evidence-based, clear-cut consensus on the optimal choice, route, and rate of fluid administration, there has been a wide variability in the practice of IVF administration in the treatment of VOC. However, there are growing concerns about the safety of this practice. This systematic review summarized the current evidence on the risk of negative outcomes in SCD patients treated for VOC with IVFs. A database search of Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Wiley Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and conference proceedings of the European Hematology Association (EHA) and American Society of Hematology (ASH) were performed. The results were presented using narrative analysis of quantitative data. Of the 2,821 identified records, a total of three eligible retrospective cohort studies with a total demographic population of 549 SCD patients were included in this review. Normal saline, a frequently used IVF for VOC may be associated with adverse outcomes such as poor pain control and volume overload. Volume overload, new oxygen requirement, acute chest syndrome, and acute kidney injury are potential adverse outcomes of inappropriate IVF use in VOC. There is limited evidence supporting the current practice of IVF use in VOC. Randomized controlled trials are required to fully clarify the place and safety of IVF in the management of VOC.
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) | 0.002 | 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".