SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003
Naloxone for shock.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 127 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inter-Rater Reliability and Acceptability of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Opioid-Associated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Prehospital emergency care · 2026Article
- Reflecting on Cancer Pain as Constant Acute Pain, not Chronic Pain. 'Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, Unknown Unknowns'.Current oncology reports · 2025Review
- Nanotechnology-Enhanced Naloxone and Alternative Treatments for Opioid Addiction.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2024Review
- Naloxone and Patient Outcomes in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in California.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Pathophysiology of Hemorrhage as It Relates to the Warfighter.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Review
- Hypertensive Effect of Downregulation of the Opioid System in Mouse Model of Different Activity of the Endogenous Opioid System.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Current research on opioid receptor function.Current drug targets · 2012Review
- Life or death? A physiogenomic approach to understand individual variation in responses to hemorrhagic shock.Current genomics · 2011Article
- New trends in resuscitation.Current problems in surgery · 2011Article
- Advances in resuscitation strategies.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2011Review
- Fluid resuscitation: past, present, and the future.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.