Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14584016›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Naloxone for shock.

B Boeuf, V Poirier, F Gauvin, A M Guerguerian, C Roy, C A Farrell, J Lacroix

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. New trends in resuscitation.Current problems in surgery · 2011
    Article
  10. Advances in resuscitation strategies.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2011
    Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

B Boeuf
V Poirier
F Gauvin
A M Guerguerian
C Roy
C A Farrell
J Lacroix
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CACentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand · FRUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is pre-clinical evidence, involving several animal species, suggesting that opioid peptides play a role in the physiopathology of shock (endotoxic, hypovolemic, cardiogenic, spinal, anaphylactic). Many case reports have suggested that naloxone (an opiate antagonist) might be an effective treatment for shock in humans, but others have not supported such a point of view. This controversy led us to undertake a meta-analysis of the available evidence on the efficacy of naloxone as a treatment measure of shock in humans.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of naloxone in human shock and to estimate the methodological quality of the clinical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerized bibliographic search up to December 2002, review of references of all papers found on the subject and contact with primary investigators of eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials evaluating naloxone in human shock, regardless of the patient's age (adult, child or neonate). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three independent reviewers extracted data on study design, intervention, outcome and methodological quality. MAIN

resultsThree independent readers reviewed 80 human publications and selected six clinical trials. Overall agreement on study selection was perfect (concordance: 100%). This meta-analysis includes six studies involving 126 patients with septic, cardiogenic, hemorrhagic or spinal shock. Naloxone therapy was associated with statistically significant hemodynamic improvement (odds ratio 0.24; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.09-0.68). The mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in the naloxone groups than in the placebo groups (weighted mean difference: +9.33 mmHg; 95%CI 7.07-11.59). No heterogeneity was found for this outcome. The death rate was lower in the naloxone group (odds ratio 0.59; 95%CI 0.21-1.67) but this was consistent with the play of chance. A significant heterogeneity for the latter outcome was detected (p<0.05). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsNaloxone improves blood pressure, especially mean arterial blood pressure. However, the clinical usefulness of naloxone to treat shock remains to be determined, and additional randomized controlled trials are needed to assess its usefulness.

Indexed as

AdultChildHumansInfant, NewbornNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShockNaloxoneNarcotic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID14584016
PMCPMC9036847
OpenAlexW1496389950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.