ArticlePaediatrics & child health2020
The relative incidence of cardiogenic and septic shock in neonates.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of dopamine versus epinephrine for pediatric or neonatal septic shock: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2020Pooled it
- A Comprehensive Review of the Approach to Ultrasonography in Neonatal Shock: The Partnership Between Targeted Neonatal Echocardiography and Point-of-Care Ultrasound.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cardiac-related neonatal collapse presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the relative incidence of cardiogenic and septic shock in term neonates and identify findings that help differentiate the two entities. STUDY
designWe conducted a retrospective chart review of term neonates presenting to British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH) with decompensated shock of an undiagnosed etiology between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2013. Charts were reviewed to determine the underlying diagnoses of all neonates meeting our inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized as having septic, cardiogenic, or other etiologies of shock. We then evaluated potential demographic, clinical, and biochemical parameters that could help differentiate between septic and cardiogenic shock.
resultsCardiogenic shock was more common than septic shock (relative risk=1.53). A history of cyanosis was suggestive of cardiogenic shock (positive likelihood ratio, LR+=3.2 and negative likelihood ratio, LR-=0.4). Presence of a murmur or gallop (LR+=5.4, LR-=0.3), or decreased femoral pulses (LR+=5.1, LR-=0.5) on physical exam were also suggestive of cardiogenic shock as was cardiomegaly on chest x-ray (LR+=4.9, LR-=0.5). Notably, temperature instability (LR+=0.7, LR-=1.8) and white blood cell count elevation or depression (LR+=0.8, LR-=1.1) were all poor predictors of septic shock.
conclusionCardiogenic shock is a more common cause of decompensated shock than septic shock. A history of cyanosis, murmur or gallop, or decreased femoral pulses on exam and cardiomegaly on chest x-ray are useful indicators of cardiogenic shock. In evaluating the neonate with decompensated shock, early consideration for Cardiology consultation and interventions to treat the underlying condition is warranted.
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.