SynthesisJournal of anesthesia2022
Steroid treatment in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of anesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative outcomes of corticosteroids, neuromuscular blocking agents, and inhaled nitric oxide in ARDS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of corticosteroids in ARDS patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data.Respiratory research · 2022Pooled it
- A Comparative Study of Glucocorticoids Efficacy in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Advances in anti-inflammatory treatment of sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2025Review
- Steroids in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A panacea or still a puzzle?World journal of critical care medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Naked Gene Delivery Induces Autophagy for Effective Treatment of Acute Lung Injury in a Mouse Model.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
- A Retrospective Data Audit of Outcome of Moderate and Severe Covid-19 Patients Who Had Received MP and Dex: A Single Center Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Risk factors for mortality in intensive care unit patients with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia pneumonia in South Korea.Acute and critical care · 2023Article
- The influence of steroid type on outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of intensive care · 2023Article
- Interpreting and assessing confidence in network meta-analysis results: an introduction for clinicians.Journal of anesthesia · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough the most recent systematic review and meta-analyses on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that the use of steroids decreases mortality in adult patients, its benefits and risks may differ depending on the type and dosage of the steroid. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the differences in the efficacy among different doses and types of steroids.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ICHUSHI, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP databases from the earliest records to March 2021 for randomized control trials, which compared steroids with placebo or conventional therapy for ARDS. Using the random-effects model, we compared various categories of steroids (high-dose methylprednisolone, low-dose methylprednisolone, hydrocortisone, dexamethasone, and no steroid) concerning hospital mortality, incidence of infection, and ventilator-free days (VFD).
resultsWe analyzed nine studies involving adult patients (n = 1212). Although there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the mortality and incidence of infection, the number of VFD were greater when using low-dose methylprednisolone than when not using any steroids (Mean difference: 6.06; 95% confidence intervals: [2.5, 10.5]). Moreover, the rank probability showed that low-dose methylprednisolone might be the optimal treatment, whereas using no steroid or high-dose methylprednisolone may be inferior to other treatments in terms of mortality, infection, and VFD.
conclusionThis NMA suggested that the effect of steroids on the outcome in patients with ARDS might depend on the type of the steroid drug administered. Moreover, further studies are needed to identify the optimal type and dosage.
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.