ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2025
A double-edged sword: a narrative review on steroids in sepsis and septic shock.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening conditions characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection. Although corticosteroids, particularly hydrocortisone, promote positive effects on hemodynamic stability in septic shock, the efficacy of these drugs remains controversial. In this narrative review, we aimed at appraising the actual role of corticosteroids focusing specifically on septic shock. We conducted a comprehensive search of the recent literature, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and current clinical guidelines, to evaluate the role of corticosteroids in the management of septic shock. Studies were evaluated to determine the impact on mortality, hemodynamics, and other clinical outcomes. The studies showed variability in dosing and time of administration as well as patient selection, which highlighted the lack of a standardized treatment approach. While corticosteroids improved short-term hemodynamic outcomes and reduced vasopressor requirement, their effect on long-term survival was minimal. These results led current guidelines to a weak recommendation for hydrocortisone use in septic shock patients with persistent hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy. Corticosteroids, e.g. hydrocortisone, can be beneficial in managing septic shock, but their role remains uncertain. Further research is needed to refine treatment protocols and determine the optimal patient selection for corticosteroid therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40500516What 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.