ArticleCritical care (London, England)2022
Vitamin C for septic shock in previous randomized trials: implications of erroneous dosing, timing, and duration.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of high-dose intravenous ascorbic acid on microcirculation and endothelial glycocalyx during sepsis and septic shock: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Trial
- Early, very high-dose, and prolonged vitamin C administration in murine sepsis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.