Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33603298›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2021

Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses vs Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Study.

Hassan Mitwally, Mohamed O Saad, Sara Mahmoud, Adham Mohamed

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Continuous versus Intermittent Hydrocortisone for the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Hassan MitwallyPharmacy Department, Al-Wakra Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Al-Wakra, Qatar.
Mohamed O SaadPharmacy Department, Al-Wakra Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Al-Wakra, Qatar.
Sara MahmoudPharmacy Department, Al-Wakra Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Al-Wakra, Qatar.
Adham MohamedPharmacy Department, Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Hamad Medical Corporation · QASaint Luke's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHydrocortisone showed to be effective in reducing the time until reversal of shock when added to standard therapy in managing septic shock. Hyperglycemia is one of the common adverse effects associated with corticosteroid treatment. However, the difference in hyperglycemia risk with different methods of hydrocortisone administration is not clear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of hyperglycemia of intermittent hydrocortisone boluses vs continuous infusion in septic shock patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a retrospective observational study. Data were collected from the electronic medical records of eligible patients admitted to intensive care units. All patients admitted with septic shock who received noradrenaline and hydrocortisone were included. Only patients who exceeded 200 mg/day of hydrocortisone were excluded. The primary outcome was mean blood glucose.

resultsA total of 108 patients (with 3,021 blood glucose readings) were included in the final analysis. Seventy-six patients received hydrocortisone as intermittent boluses (70.3%), and 32 patients (29.7%) received continuous infusion. For the primary outcome, no statistically or clinically significant difference was found in the blood glucose estimated marginal mean: 8.58 mmol/L (95% confidence interval [CI]; 8.01-9.16) in the bolus group and 8.9 mmol/L (95% CI; 7.99-9.82) in the infusion group with a mean difference of 0.32 mmol/L (95% CI; -0.77 to 1.41). For secondary outcomes, no difference was found between the two groups in mortality, length of stay, reversal of shock, or hypoglycemic events.

conclusionIntermittent boluses of hydrocortisone were not associated with a higher risk of hyperglycemia than continuous infusion in septic shock patients. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Mitwally H, Saad MO, Mahmoud S, Mohamed A. Hyperglycemia Risk Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Intermittent Boluses vs Continuous Infusion in Septic Shock: A Retrospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(1):29-33.

Indexed as

Continuous infusionHydrocortisoneHyperglycemiaIntermittent bolusesSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID33603298
PMCPMC7874298
OpenAlexW3119526171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.