Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 573

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study

Open access
on behalf of the FENICE Investigators and the ESICM Trial Group, Cecconi, Maurizio, Hofer, Christoph, Teboul, Jean-Louis, Pettila, Ville, Wilkman, Erika, Molnar, Zsolt, Della Rocca, Giorgio, Aldecoa, Cesar, Artigas, Antonio, Jog, Sameer, Sander, Michael, Spies, Claudia, Lefrant, Jean-Yves, De Backer, Daniel·2015·Intensive Care Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fluid challenges (FCs) are one of the most commonly used therapies in critically ill patients and represent the cornerstone of hemodynamic management in intensive care units. There are clear benefits and harms from fluid therapy. Limited data on the indication, type, amount and rate of an FC in critically ill patients exist in the literature. The primary aim was to evaluate how physicians conduct FCs in terms of type, volume, and rate of given fluid; the secondary aim was to evaluate variables used to trigger an FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. METHODS: This was an observational study conducted in ICUs around the world. Each participating unit entered a maximum of 20 patients with one FC. RESULTS: 2213 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during an FC was 500 ml (500-1000). The median time was 24 min (40-60 min), and the median rate of FC was 1000 [500-1333] ml/h. The main indication for FC was hypotension in 1211 (59%, CI 57-61%). In 43% (CI 41-45%) of the cases no hemodynamic variable was used. Static markers of preload were used in 785 of 2213 cases (36%, CI 34-37%). Dynamic indices of preload responsiveness were used in 483 of 2213 cases (22%, CI 20-24%). No safety variable for the FC was used in 72% (CI 70-74%) of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who received further fluids after the FC between those with a positive, with an uncertain or with a negatively judged response. CONCLUSIONS: The current practice and evaluation of FC in critically ill patients are highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not used routinely, safety limits are rarely used, and information from previous failed FCs is not always taken into account.

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 · 10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x

Cites

39 of 39 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

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 573

Metadata

Authors
on behalf of the FENICE Investigators and the ESICM Trial Group, Cecconi, M., Hofer, C., Teboul, J.-L., Pettila, V., Wilkman, E., Molnar, Z., Della Rocca, G., Aldecoa, C., Artigas, A., Jog, S., Sander, M., Spies, C., Lefrant, J.-Y., & De Backer, D.
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-07-11
Volume
41
Issue
9
Pages
1529-1537
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
DOI
10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x
OpenAlex
W1944614931
Cited by
573
References
39
FWCI
53.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x
The paper
on behalf of the FENICE Investigators and the ESICM Trial Group, Cecconi, M., Hofer, C., Teboul, J.-L., Pettila, V., Wilkman, E., Molnar, Z., Della Rocca, G., Aldecoa, C., Artigas, A., Jog, S., Sander, M., Spies, C., Lefrant, J.-Y., & De Backer, D. (2015). Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x

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.