Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22022874›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2012

Vasopressors in shock: too early to move away from catecholamines?

D De Backer, S Scolletta

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D De BackerDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. ddebacke@ulb.ac.be
S Scolletta
Université Libre de Bruxelles · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adrenergic and non-adrenergic vasopressor agents can be used to correct hypotension in shock states. For a similar increase in arterial pressure, these agents may be associated with different haemodynamic, metabolic, endocrinological or immunological effects. But how relevant are these differences? Do these affect the outcome of patients with shock? Large-scale randomized trials comparing the effects of different vasopressor agents are scarce. Data on potential alternatives, and especially vasopressin, are even more scarce. Over-interpretation of the data, and especially of data obtained in subgroups, is common. Analysis of subgroups may be useful to address mechanisms and to raise hypotheses. However, subgroup analysis is often biased by confounding factors, especially when subgroup categorization is defined by response to therapy and not by intrinsic patient or disease characteristics. In this issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology, Bracht and colleagues present their interpretation of data from trials comparing vasopressin with noradrenaline in patients with septic shock. Here, we present an alternative interpretation.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessAnimalsCardiotonic AgentsCritical CareHumansVasoconstrictor AgentsCardiotonic AgentsVasoconstrictor Agents

Identifiers

PMID22022874
PMCPMC3413840
OpenAlexW1480631153

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.