ArticleBMJ open2021
Optimal target blood pressure in critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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.
- Optimal target blood pressure in critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of duration below target mean arterial pressure value on mortality in critically ill patients.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Identification of Perioperative Procedural and Hemodynamic Risk Factors for Developing Colonic Ischemia after Ruptured Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery: A Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal target of mean arterial pressure (MAP) for better outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock remains a matter of debate. Although catecholamines are generally used to maintain target blood pressure in hypotensive patients with vasodilatory shock, the adverse effects of catecholamines must also be considered. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the certainty of evidence determining the optimal target of MAP control for patients with vasodilatory shock in critically ill settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study protocol was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We will include only RCTs that evaluated the two different comparators for target MAP to be maintained for clinical outcomes of all-cause mortality: organ dysfunction and adverse events in critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock. We will search the electronic bibliographic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in November 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, perform full article reviews and extract study data. We will report study characteristics and assess methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. If pooling is appropriate, we will calculate relative risks with 95% CIs for all outcome measures. Clinical and methodological subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore heterogeneity. Overall certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not involve primary data collection, and formal ethics approval will therefore not be required. We aim to publish this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000042624.
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.