Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37268800›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023

High-normal versus low-normal mean arterial pressure thresholds in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Kiran J K Rikhraj, Claire Ronsley, Mypinder S Sekhon, Anish R Mitra, Donald E G Griesdale

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

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

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kiran J K RikhrajDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. k.rikhraj@alumni.ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-5843
Claire RonsleyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mypinder S SekhonDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Anish R MitraDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Donald E G GriesdaleDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAUniversity of British Columbia Hospital · CAVancouver Coastal Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTargeted blood pressure thresholds remain unclear in critically ill patients. Two prior systematic reviews have not shown differences in mortality with a high mean arterial pressure (MAP) threshold, but there have been new studies published since. Thus, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of a high-normal vs low-normal MAP on mortality, favourable neurologic outcome, need for renal replacement therapy, and adverse vasopressor-induced events in critically ill patients. SOURCE: We searched six databases from inception until 1 October 2022 for RCTs of critically ill patients targeted to either a high-normal vs a low-normal MAP threshold for at least 24 hr. We assessed study quality using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool and the risk ratio (RR) was used as the summary measure of association. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence. PRINCIPAL

findingsWe included eight RCTs with 4,561 patients. Four trials were conducted in patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, two in patients with distributive shock requiring vasopressors, one in patients with septic shock, and one in patients with hepatorenal syndrome. The pooled RRs for mortality (eight RCTs; 4,439 patients) and favourable neurologic outcome (four RCTs; 1,065 patients) were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.14; moderate certainty) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.08; moderate certainty), respectively. The RR for the need for renal replacement therapy (four RCTs; 4,071 patients) was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.08; moderate certainty). There was no statistical between-study heterogeneity across all outcomes.

conclusionThis updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs found no differences in mortality, favourable neurologic outcome, or the need for renal replacement therapy between critically ill patients assigned to a high-normal vs low-normal MAP target. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022307601); registered 28 February 2022.

Indexed as

Arterial PressureCritical IllnessBiasHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topiccritically illMAPmortalityneurologic outcomerenal replacement therapy

Identifiers

PMID37268800
OpenAlexW4379162827

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.