SynthesisItalian journal of pediatrics2020
The efficacy of dopamine versus epinephrine for pediatric or neonatal septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Synthesis in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Development and Validation of a Minimum Dataset for a Pediatric Septic Shock Registry: A Descriptive and Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Epinephrine Versus Dopamine in Children, What Is the Current Evidence and What Do We Need? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2024Article
- Article
- An Update on Pharmacologic Management of Neonatal Hypotension: When, Why, and Which Medication.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comprehensive Management of Blood Pressure in Patients with Septic AKI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Developments in pediatrics in 2020: choices in allergy, autoinflammatory disorders, critical care, endocrinology, genetics, infectious diseases, microbiota, neonatology, neurology, nutrition, ortopedics, respiratory tract illnesses and rheumatology.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2021Review
- [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- Acute effects of vasoactive medications in patients with parallel circulation awaiting hybrid or Norwood procedure.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficacy of dopamine versus epinephrine for pediatric or neonatal septic shock remains controversial. We conduct a meta-analysis to explore the influence of dopamine versus epinephrine on shock reversal for pediatric or neonatal septic shock.
methodsWe have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through July 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of dopamine versus epinephrine for pediatric or neonatal septic shock.
resultsThree RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall for pediatric or neonatal septic shock, dopamine and epinephrine reveal comparable shock reversal within 1 h (risk ratios (RR) = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.16 to 2.31; P = 0.47), mortality (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.55; P = 0.30), heart rate (standard mean differences (SMD) = 0.03; 95% CI = -0.28 to 0.34; P = 0.85), systolic blood pressure (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI = -0.69 to 0.33; P = 0.49), mean arterial pressure (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI = -1.64 to 1.34; P = 0.84) and adverse events (RR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.07; P = 0.91).
conclusionsDopamine and epinephrine show the comparable efficacy for the treatment of pediatric or neonatal septic shock.
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.