SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Is dexmedetomidine superior to non-dexmedetomidine sedatives (particularly propofol) for sedation in critically ill patients with septic shock? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Dexmedetomidine in Palestinian intensive care units: The first multicenter cross-sector survey of sedation practices, protocol gaps, and withdrawal challenges.SAGE open medicine · 2026Article
- Association of Dexmedetomidine Exposure with Long-Term Mortality in Patients with Dialysis-Requiring Acute Kidney Injury: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Real-World Evidence for Combination Sedation: Propofol Plus Dexmedetomidine and Clinical Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
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
Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) and propofol (PROP) are both recommended as first-line short-acting sedative-analgesic agents for sepsis patients. However, existing studies have reported inconsistent clinical outcomes potentially attributable to their distinct hemodynamic profiles. The aim of our study was to systematically evaluate the comparative clinical efficacy and safety of DEX vs. non-Dexmedetomidine sedatives (particularly Propofol) in patients with septic shock. Methods: The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024626139). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting eligibility criteria were systematically searched up to December 2024. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was employed to determine the required sample size. Results: 17 RCTs were enrolled with 1,422 patients. Compared with non-DEX group, DEX group presented significantly reduced 28-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94, Conclusion: DEX demonstrated superiority over non-DEX sedatives in critically ill patients with septic shock without increasing hemodynamic adverse events. However, current evidence showed no significant differences between DEX and PROP, warranting further high-quality RCTs for definitive conclusions.
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.