ArticleWorld journal of critical care medicine2017
Timing, method and discontinuation of hydrocortisone administration for septic shock patients.
Article in World journal of critical care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuous versus Intermittent Hydrocortisone for the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026Pooled it
- Corticosteroids for Treating Sepsis in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Pooled it
- Early adjunctive methylene blue in patients with septic shock: a randomized controlled trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Trial
- Continuous vs. intermittent infusion of corticosteroids in septic shock: a GRADE-based systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Influence of hydrocortisone infusion method on the clinical outcome of patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of intensive medicine · 2025Article
- Effect of Continuous Infusion vs Bolus Dose of Hydrocortisone in Septic Shock: A Prospective Randomized Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Theory and Practice of Glucocorticoids in COVID-19: Getting to the Heart of the Matter-A Critical Review and Viewpoints.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- General Adaptation in Critical Illness: Glucocorticoid Receptor-alpha Master Regulator of Homeostatic Corrections.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo characterize the prescribing patterns for hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock and perform an exploratory analysis in order to identify the variables associated with better outcomes.
methodsThis prospective cohort study included 59 patients with septic shock who received stress-dose hydrocortisone. It was performed at 2 critical care units in academic hospitals from June 1
resultsAll-cause 30-d mortality was 42%. Hydrocortisone was administered as a continuous infusion in 54.2% of patients; time to reversal of shock was 49 h longer in patients who were given a bolus administration [59 h (range, 47.5-90.5)
conclusionContinuous infusion of hydrocortisone could hasten the resolution of septic shock compared to bolus administration. Earlier initiation corresponds with a higher probability of shock reversal. Tapering strategy is unnecessary.
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.