ReviewProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2022
Meta-analysis comparing dexmedetomidine versus standard of care for sedation in patients with sepsis.
Review in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reno-protective effects of perioperative dexmedetomidine in kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International urology and nephrology · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of a Dexmedetomidine Intravenous Infusion in Septic Dogs: Preliminary Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits of dexmedetomidine (DEX) in comparison with the standard of care (SOC) sedation in critically ill, septic patients. Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched to identify only randomized clinical trials performed up until February 12, 2021. The primary outcomes were 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS). We calculated risk ratios (RRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data, and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous data using a random-effects model. Seven randomized clinical trials were included, with a total of 529 patients in the DEX group and 520 patients in the SOC group. Compared with SOC, DEX was associated with a nonstatistically significant reduced 28-day mortality (RR = 0.76; 95% CI [0.51, 1.14];
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.