↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
55 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
490 Mendeley
Title
Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000567.pub7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon R Lewis, Michael W Pritchard, David JW Evans, Andrew R Butler, Phil Alderson, Andrew F Smith, Ian Roberts

Abstract

Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic). Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 490 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 480 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 15%
Student > Bachelor 60 12%
Other 58 12%
Student > Postgraduate 51 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 9%
Other 112 23%
Unknown 91 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 235 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 20 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 2%
Social Sciences 6 1%
Other 48 10%
Unknown 110 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#677,897
of 17,391,055 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,704
of 11,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,525
of 285,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,391,055 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.