SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2025
Application of norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic Progress and Antifungal Potential of Thiophene Chalcone Derivatives: A Review.Current organic synthesis · 2026Review
- The therapeutic effect of norepinephrine alone or in combination with vasopressin on septic shock patients: a meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2025Review
- Vasopressor Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock.
methodsLiterature retrieval of eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on norepinephrine in the treatment of septic shock was performed in three English databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Medline from database establishment to October 1, 2023. The Cochrane risk bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 14 RCTs were included in this study, and the risk of bias was low. Our meta-analysis showed that the norepinephrine group had significantly better outcomes in reducing the 28-day mortality rate (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 ~ 0.99; P = 0.03), the incidence of arrhythmia (RR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45 ~ 0.64; P < 0.0001), and the length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU) (MD = - 1.03; 95% CI, - 1.85 to approximately - 0.21; P = 0.01) than those of the control group. However, there were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital mortality rate (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 ~ 1.04; P = 0.4), the 90-day mortality rate (RR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97 ~ 1.18; P = 0.15), length of hospital stay (MD = 0.03; 95% CI, - 1.13 ~ 1.18; P = 0.96), and the rate of achieving target MAP (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.72 ~ 2.26; P = 0.41) between the norepinephrine group and the control group.
conclusionNorepinephrine has the advantages of improving 28-day mortality, shortening ICU hospitalization time, and reducing the incidence of arrhythmia. It is a more effective choice for the treatment of septic shock than other vasopressors, and the incidence of arrhythmia is low.
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.