ReviewAfrican journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of noradrenaline compared to adrenaline in the management of septic shock.
Review in African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for short-term mortality in elderly critically ill AKI patients treated with CRRT in the ICU: a retrospective cohort study.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Adrenaline vs noradrenaline: Equity, context, and the realities of best practice.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeptic shock is associated with significant mortality. The International Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend noradrenaline as first-line vasopressor, whilst South African guidelines recommend adrenaline. Clinical trials show similar efficacy but suggest safety advantages for noradrenaline. We reviewed the evidence comparing noradrenaline and adrenaline in the initial management of adult patients with septic shock.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries for clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments, and systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through July 2024. We appraised these using AGREE II and AMSTAR 2 tools and assessed eligible RCTs extracted from systematic reviews with Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We estimated random-effects rate ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals and rated certainty of evidence using GRADE. Key outcomes included mortality, time to shock reversal, and adverse effects. (PROSPERO: CRD42022368373).
resultsWe identified three guidelines, one systematic review, from which five RCTs were extracted. Comparing adrenaline to noradrenaline, we found little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.99, 0.83 to 1.18), time to improvement of mean arterial pressure (MD 7.17 min, -16.74 to 31.08), vasopressor-free days (MD -0.05 days, -4.07 to 3.96), or dysrhythmias (RR 0.92, 0.59 to 1.45). Change in lactate concentrations 24 h after resuscitation was lower for noradrenaline than adrenaline. The certainty of evidence was assessed as low to very low.
conclusionAdrenaline and noradrenaline are associated with similar outcomes in managing septic shock. The choice of vasopressor should be based on availability, patient population, and cost.
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.