ReviewCureus2025
Methylene Blue in Septic Shock: Emerging Evidence, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Septic shock remains a significant cause of mortality in intensive care units worldwide despite advances in management strategies. The pathophysiology involves profound circulatory and cellular abnormalities leading to vasoplegic shock. While norepinephrine remains the first-line vasopressor, there is growing interest in catecholamine-sparing agents to mitigate the adverse effects of adrenergic overstimulation. Methylene blue, with its inhibitory action on nitric oxide pathways, has emerged as a potential adjunctive therapy. This review examines the theoretical mechanisms, pharmacokinetics, clinical evidence, and practical considerations for methylene blue use in septic shock. While some promising results regarding reduced vasopressor requirements and length of stay are suggested, current evidence does not support methylene blue as a replacement for established second-line agents like vasopressin. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to establish optimal dosing regimens, timing of administration, and specific patient populations who might benefit most from this intervention.
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.