ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of High-Normal Versus Low-Normal Mean Arterial Pressure at Target on Outcomes in Sepsis or Shock Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research without prior consent procedure and intervention effect on mortality in critical care: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Development and multi-center validation of a machine learning‑based prediction model for mortality in tumor-related sepsis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Optimal target mean arterial pressure for patients with sepsis-associated encephalopathy: a retrospective cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the impact of a high-normal and a low-normal mean arterial pressure (MAP) target on outcomes in patients with sepsis or shock. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, two investigators conducted a thorough literature search across online databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE, spanning from inception to December 10, 2023. The assessed outcomes encompassed all-cause mortality, the need for renal replacement therapy, and the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. A total of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving 3507 participants with individual study participant counts ranging from 118 to 2463. The pooled analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality between the two groups (Risk Ratio (RR): 0.94, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.87 to 1.01). Furthermore, there was no disparity in the rates of renal replacement therapy and the duration of ICU stay between the high-normal and low-normal MAP groups. Our findings indicate no significant distinctions in mortality, rates of renal replacement therapy, or ICU stay duration between the two groups. However, future trials with larger sample sizes are warranted to comprehensively understand the nuanced effects of different MAP settings on outcomes in patients with sepsis and shock.
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.