Norepinephrine dose and concentration reporting: the devil is in the details.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The usual suspects: a pragmatic framework to identify and address reversible contributors in apparent refractory septic shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2026
   Review
2. Need for standardization in norepinephrine dosage in the management of septic shock.Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica · 2025
   Article
3. Norepinephrine pharmacolexicology: a chronological review of dose reporting and the implications of salt formulations.Intensive care medicine · 2025
   Review
4. The impact of norepinephrine dose reporting heterogeneity on mortality prediction in septic shock patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Norepinephrine dose and concentration reporting: a closer look at the fine print.2024

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as