ArticleJournal of intensive care2019
Terlipressin for septic shock patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled study.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Terlipressin for the treatment of septic shock in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical Efficiency of Vasopressin or Its Analogs in Comparison With Catecholamines Alone on Patients With Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Adjunctive terlipressin versus placebo in the treatment of refractory septic shock: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Addition of terlipressin to norepinephrine in septic shock and effect of renal perfusion: a pilot study.Renal failure · 2022Trial
- Early combination of terlipressin and norepinephrine in the treatment of patients with septic shock.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Postoperative sepsis-associated neurocognitive disorder: mechanisms, predictive strategies, and treatment approaches.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Review
- Non-catecholamine vasopressors in the treatment of adult patients with septic shock-evidence from meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.Journal of intensive care · 2020Article
- Article
- Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCatecholamines are commonly used in septic shock but face limitations of their hypo-responsiveness and adverse events due to high dose. Terlipressin is a synthetic vasopressin analog with greater selectivity for the V1-receptor. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of terlipressin in septic shock.
methodsWe searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception up to July 15, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported data on any of the predefined outcomes in patients with septic shock and managed with terlipressin or any catecholamines. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were explored.
resultsTen studies with 928 patients were included. Despite the shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, use of terlipressin did not reduce the risk of mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05;
conclusionsCurrent results suggest terlipressin did not show added survival benefit in septic shock therapy when compared with catecholamines.
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.