Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35138990›Full record

ArticlePathogens and global health2022

Norepinephrine may improve survival of septic shock patients in a low-resource setting: a proof-of-concept study on feasibility and efficacy outside the Intensive Care Unit.

Paolo Bima, Carmen Orlotti, Okot Godfrey Smart, Fulvio Morello, Mattia Trunfio, Luca Brazzi, Giorgia Montrucchio

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pathogens and global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Perceptions, availability and use of vasopressors for septic shock in emergency care settings in Tanzania.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Paolo BimaS.C. Medicina d'Urgenza U, Molinette Hospital, A.O.U. Città Della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2193-0509
Carmen OrlottiDr. Ambrosoli Memorial Hospital, Kalongo, Uganda.
Okot Godfrey SmartDr. Ambrosoli Memorial Hospital, Kalongo, Uganda.
Fulvio MorelloS.C. Medicina d'Urgenza U, Molinette Hospital, A.O.U. Città Della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
Mattia TrunfioInfectious Diseases Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Torino, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Torino, Italy.
Luca BrazziAnestesia e Rianimazione 1U, Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
Giorgia MontrucchioAnestesia e Rianimazione 1U, Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
Fondazione Ricerca Molinette · ITKalongo Hospital · UGUniversity of Turin · ITOspedale Amedeo di Savoia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Septic shock treatment in sub-Saharan African hospitals is challenging due to limited availability of ICUs, central venous catheters, vasopressors, and trained staff. We designed this proof-of-concept study to determine efficacy, safety, and feasibility of norepinephrine (NE) use in a non-intensive setting in a low-resource country, consisting in a peripheral infusion via a mechanical drop counter. Septic shock patients accessing a rural hospital in Uganda were included: the 2020 group (N = 12) was prospectively enrolled (Jan-Mar 2020) when NE was available; the 2019 group (N = 11) was retrospectively enrolled (Oct-Dec 2019). Enrollment was continuous to reduce selection bias. Basic clinical endpoints (noninvasive blood pressure, tissue perfusion, diuresis) defined shock control and the prognostic endpoint was survival at hospital discharge. Shock control at 6 and 12 hours was higher in the 2020 group (p = 0.012 for both). Survival at hospital discharge was 75% and 27.3%, respectively (p = 0.039). NE infusion was associated with a Hazard Ratio of 0.23 (p = 0.041) in a multivariate Cox model. No NE-induced adverse effects were detected. These preliminary results suggest that implementing NE infusion in a low-resource setting without ICU could be a safe and effective strategy in managing septic shock and that this approach could lead to a lower mortality rate.

Indexed as

Shock, SepticFeasibility StudiesHumansIntensive Care UnitsNorepinephrineRetrospective StudiesNorepinephrineaminesdeveloping countriesnorepinephrinesepsisSeptic shockSub-Saharan Africasympathomimetic

Identifiers

PMID35138990
PMCPMC9387336
OpenAlexW4210901243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.