ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2017
Use of corticosteroids in acute respiratory distress syndrome: Perspective from an Indian intensive care unit.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complications of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: An Appraisal of Contemporary Literature.Cardiology and therapy · 2019Review
- The role of natriuretic peptides in the management, outcomes and prognosis of sepsis and septic shock.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2019Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) causes overwhelming inflammation, which serves as a potential target for corticosteroids. Despite extensive Western literature, there are no Indian studies evaluating steroids in ARDS.
methodsThis was a retrospective study at an Indian intensive care unit (ICU) on ARDS patients. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters were collected. Patients were divided into cohorts based on steroid use, and some received high-dose (2 mg/kg/day), whereas others received low-dose (1 mg/kg/day) steroids. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included need for and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), IMV-free days, ICU length of stay (LOS), and total LOS. Two-tailed
resultsDuring the 20-month period, 95 patients [median age 37 (30-47) years; 48 (50.5%) males] met our inclusion criteria. Steroid use was noted in 48 (50.5%) patients [11 (22.9%) low-dose and 37 (77.1%) high-dose]. Baseline characteristics of the cohorts, including ARDS severity indices, were comparable. Of these 95 patients, 70 (73.7%) had sepsis, but microbiological diagnosis was positive only in 17 (17.9%) patients. Steroid use did not significantly influence mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.6 (0.3-1.4)] or need for IMV [OR 1.0 (0.4-2.6)]. There were no differences in outcomes of IMV-free days, ICU LOS, or total LOS. These outcomes were comparable between the high-dose and low-dose steroid users.
conclusionsSteroid use and comparison of low-dose vs. high-dose steroids did not influence outcomes associated with ARDS in the Indian population.
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.