Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation

Open access
Bunn, F, Alderson, P, Hawkins, V·2003·The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colloids are widely used in the replacement of fluid volume, however doubts remain as to their benefits. Different colloids vary in their molecular weight and therefore in the length of time they remain in the circulatory system. Because of this and their other characteristics, they may differ in their safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different colloid solutions in patients thought to need volume replacement. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Injuries Group specialised register, The Cochrane Controlled trials register (all years), MEDLINE (1994-98), EMBASE (1974-98) were searched. Bibliographies of trials retrieved were searched and drug companies manufacturing colloids were contacted for information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi randomised trials comparing colloid solutions in critically ill and surgical patients thought to need volume replacement. The main outcomes measured were death, amount of whole blood transfused and incidence of adverse reactions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. MAIN RESULTS: 46 trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2884 participants. Many of the trials were small. In the majority of trials quality was poor or uncertain. Deaths were obtained from 27 trials. Twenty three trials recorded the amount of blood transfused, however quantitative analysis was not possible due to skewness and variable reporting. Thirteen trials recorded adverse reactions, but none occurred. For albumin or PPF versus hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 20 trials reported mortality. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% CI 0.91, 1.50). For albumin or PPF versus gelatin 3 trials reported mortality. The RR was 0.99 (0.69, 1.42). For gelatin vs HES 3 trials reported mortality, RR was 0.97 (0.65, 1.44). RR was not estimable in the albumin vs dextran, gelatin vs dextran, and HES vs dextran groups. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: From this review, there is no evidence that one colloid solution is more effective or safe than any other, although the confidence intervals are wide and do not exclude clinically significant differences between colloids. Larger trials of fluid therapy are needed if clinically significant differences in mortality are to be detected or excluded.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd001319

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 218

Metadata

Authors
Bunn, F., Alderson, P., & Hawkins, V
Venue
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2003-01-20
Issue
1
Pages
CD001319-CD001319
OpenAlex
W1891869308
Cited by
218
References
3
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd001319
The paper
Bunn, F., Alderson, P., & Hawkins, V. (2003). Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001319

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.