ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Effect of methylprednisolone vs hydrocortisone on 30-day mortality in critically ill adults with septic shock: an analysis of the MIMIC-IV database.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- A clinician's guide to corticosteroid therapy in pneumonia and critical illness: agent selection, dosing, monitoring, and interactions.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2026Review
- Hydrocortisone vs. Methylprednisolone in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Propensity Score Matching Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Continuous vs. intermittent infusion of corticosteroids in septic shock: a GRADE-based systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethylprednisolone is still used to treat adults with septic shock in real-world clinical settings, despite current international guidelines recommending hydrocortisone. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of methylprednisolone vs hydrocortisone on 30-day mortality among critically ill patients with septic shock.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on adults with septic shock using the MIMIC-IV v3.0 database. Patients who received methylprednisolone after diagnosis were matched using propensity score matching (PSM) with those received hydrocortisone, to balance confounding factors between groups. The primary outcome was the 30-day mortality rate. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the conclusions.
resultsA total of 1,607 septic shock patents were enrolled in this study, with an overall 30-day mortality rate of 42.1%. After 1:1 PSM, 376 pairs were successfully matched. The primary outcome occurred in 141 patients (37.5%) and in 131 patients (34.8%) in the methylprednisolone and hydrocortisone groups, respectively (HR = 1.105, 95% CI: 0.871-1.402, P = 0.410). In subgroup analyses based on age, sex, blood culture positivity, pneumonia, and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), along with sensitivity analyses for deletion of missing values, findings remained consistent. However, the methylprednisolone group exhibited a longer ICU stay, elevated blood glucose levels, and a shorter maintenance duration for vasopressin compared to the hydrocortisone group.
conclusionsAmong adults with septic shock, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between those administered methylprednisolone and hydrocortisone. It needs to be further verified in prospective, randomized controlled trials.
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.