title: Liberal versus restricted fluid resuscitation strategies in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies*.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Hemorrhage is responsible for most deaths that occur during the first few hours after trauma. Animal models of trauma have shown that restricting fluid administration can reduce the risk of death; however, studies in patients are difficult to conduct due to logistical and ethical problems. To maximize the value of the existing evidence, we performed a meta-analysis to compare liberal versus restricted fluid resuscitation strategies in trauma patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Medline and Embase were systemically searched from inception to February 2013.
  
  
  METHODS
  We selected randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared different fluid administration strategies in trauma patients. There were no restrictions for language, population, or publication year.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four randomized controlled trials and seven observational studies were identified from 1,106 references. One of the randomized controlled trials suffered from a high protocol violation rate and was excluded from the final analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The quantitative synthesis indicated that liberal fluid resuscitation strategies might be associated with higher mortality than restricted fluid strategies, both in randomized controlled trials (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55; three trials; I(2), 0) and observational studies (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; seven studies; I(2), 21.4%). When only adjusted odds ratios were pooled for observational studies, odds for mortality with liberal fluid resuscitation strategies increased (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.38; six studies; I(2), 26.3%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Current evidence indicates that initial liberal fluid resuscitation strategies may be associated with higher mortality in injured patients. However, available studies are subject to a high risk of selection bias and clinical heterogeneity. This result should be interpreted with great caution.
authors: 1Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. 2Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 3Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chang-Gung University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan. 4Department of Medicine, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan. 5Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 6Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital Yunlin Branch, Yunlin, Taiwan. 7Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
authors: Chih-Hung
authors: CH
authors: Wang
authors: Wen-Han
authors: WH
authors: Hsieh
authors: Hao-Chang
authors: HC
authors: Chou
authors: Yu-Sheng
authors: YS
authors: Huang
authors: Jen-Hsiang
authors: JH
authors: Shen
authors: Yee Hui
authors: YH
authors: Yeo
authors: Huai-En
authors: HE
authors: Chang
authors: Shyr-Chyr
authors: SC
authors: Chen
authors: Chien-Chang
authors: CC
authors: Lee
mesh_terms: D005440:Fluid Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D006470:Hemorrhage / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D064887:Observational Studies as Topic; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012151:Resuscitation / Q000379:methods* / Q000401:mortality; D014947:Wounds and Injuries / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*