ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019
Combination era, using combined vasopressors showed benefits in treating septic shock patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Norepinephrine Plus Dobutamine Versus Epinephrine As First-Line Vasoactive Agents in Children With Fluid Refractory Cold Septic Shock.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- Vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock patients: an analysis of the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Of Size and Men: A Call for Larger Trials and Meta-Analyses on Vasopressors During General Anesthesia.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2021Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeptic shock is one of the major healthcare problems, affecting millions of people around the world every year. The object of this study is to find the best kind of regimen of vasopressors treatment in septic shock.
methodsThe PubMed, and the Web of Science were used to find the included studies. Stata 15.1 was performed to this systemic review and network meta-analysis.
resultsAfter searching and screening the articles, finally we included articles about 31 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 arms (dopamine, dopexamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, norepinephrine + dopexamine, norepinephrine + epinephrine, norepinephrine + vasopressin, phenylephrine, terlipressin, vasopressin) and total 5,928 patients with septic shock. Compared with dopamine, the regimens (epinephrine, norepinephrine, norepinephrine + dobutamine, and vasopressin) have significantly lower 28-day mortality. Ranking the regimens in the order of estimated probabilities of each treatment by using the network meta-analysis for 28-day mortality, the result showed that norepinephrine + dopexamine was the best one (57.3%), followed by norepinephrine + epinephrine (14.8%), norepinephrine + dobutamine (10.9%), dopexamine (11.2%), terlipressin (9.8%), norepinephrine + vasopressin (2.4%), phenylephrine (1.2%), epinephrine (1.0%), vasopressin (0.5%), norepinephrine (0.0%), and dopamine (0.0%). In addition, for the results of arrhythmia and increased heart rate, the combination regimens groups did not showed inferiority to other single regimen groups.
conclusionsSingle dopamine had significantly higher 28d mortality. Combination regimens of vasopressors accounted for the best three therapeutic regimens. In treating patients with septic shock, using combining regimens probably gets more benefits.
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.