SynthesisYonsei medical journal2016
Protocol-Based Resuscitation for Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies.
Synthesis in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Goal directed therapy for suspected acute bacterial meningitis in adults and adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOwing to the recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, protocol-based resuscitation or goal-directed therapy (GDT) is broadly advocated for the treatment of septic shock. However, the most recently published trials showed no survival benefit from protocol-based resuscitation in septic shock patients. Hence, we aimed to assess the effect of GDT on clinical outcomes in such patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a systematic review that included a meta-analysis. We used electronic search engines including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database to find studies comparing protocol-based GDT to common or standard care in patients with septic shock and severe sepsis.
resultsA total of 13269 septic shock patients in 24 studies were included [12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies]. The overall mortality odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for GDT versus conventional care was 0.746 (0.631-0.883). In RCTs only, the mortality OR (95% CI) for GDT versus conventional care in the meta-analysis was 0.93 (0.75-1.16). The beneficial effect of GDT decreased as more recent studies were added in an alternative, cumulative meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found.
conclusionThe result of this meta-analysis suggests that GDT reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. However, our cumulative meta-analysis revealed that the reduction of mortality risk was diminished as more recent studies were added.
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.