The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fluid resuscitation with colloid or crystalloid solutions in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised trials
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect on mortality of rescuscitation with colloid solutions compared with resuscitation with crystalloids. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of resuscitation with colloids compared with crystalloids for volume replacement of critically ill patients; analysis stratified according to patient type and quality of allocation concealment. SUBJECTS: 37 randomised controlled trials were eligible, of which 26 unconfounded trials compared colloids with crystalloids (n = 1622). (The 10 trials that compared colloid in hypertonic crystalloid with isotonic crystalloid (n = 1422) and one trial that compared colloid in isotonic crystalloid with hypertonic crystalloid (n = 38) are described in the longer version on our website www.bmj.com). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality from all causes at end of follow up for each trial. RESULTS: Resuscitation with colloids was associated with an increased absolute risk of mortality of 4% (95% confidence interval 0% to 8%), or four extra deaths for every 100 patients resuscitated. The summary effect measure shifted towards increased mortality with colloids when only trials with adequate concealment of allocation were included. There was no evidence for differences in effect among patients with different types of injury that required fluid resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review does not support the continued use of colloids for volume replacement in critically ill patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Cited by
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock
Dellinger, R. P., Levy, M. M., Rhodes, A., Annane, D., Gerlach, H., Opal, S. M., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Douglas, I. S., Jaeschke, R., et al. (2013) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31827e83af · Cited by 9,694
Levitt, D., & Levitt, M. (2016) · International Journal of General Medicine · doi:10.2147/ijgm.s102819 · Cited by 763
The Phenomenon of “Fluid Creep” in Acute Burn Resuscitation
Saffle, J. R. (2007) · Journal of Burn Care & Research · doi:10.1097/bcr.0b013e318053d3a1 · Cited by 326
Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people
Lewis, S. R., Pritchard, M. W., Evans, D. J., Butler, A. R., Alderson, P., Smith, A. F., & Roberts, I. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000567.pub7 · Cited by 315
Self-citationDifferent Patterns of Duplicate Publication: An Analysis of Articles Used in Systematic Reviews
von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., & Tramèr, M. R. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.8.974 · Cited by 290
Metadata
- Authors
- Schierhout, G., & Roberts, I.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-03-28
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 7136
- Pages
- 961-964
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2045041613
- Cited by
- 659
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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 resuscitation with colloid or crystalloid solutions in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.316.7136.961
- The paper
- Schierhout, G., & Roberts, I. (1998). Fluid resuscitation with colloid or crystalloid solutions in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7136.961
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.