Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2025
The Effect of Methylene Blue on Sublingual Microcirculation in Patients with Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 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.
- The Effectiveness of Methylene Blue in Adult Shock: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methylene blue (MB) has been proposed as an adjunctive therapy in the early management of septic shock; however, its effects on microcirculatory function remain poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate whether MB infusion improves sublingual microcirculatory parameters in patients with septic shock. Methods: In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, participants were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the MB group or the control group. The MB group received an intravenous bolus of 2 mg/kg MB over 15 minutes, followed by a continuous infusion of 1 mg/kg MB diluted in 500 mL of 0.9% saline via a central venous catheter for 12 hours. The control group received an equivalent volume of saline. The primary endpoint was the change in sublingual microcirculation parameters from baseline to 24 hours, assessed using a repeated-measures mixed-effects model. Secondary endpoints included 28-day organ support-free days and 28-day mortality. Results: Among the 72 randomized participants, 70.8% (n=51) were male, with a mean age of 68.6±13.5 years. Following MB treatment, the mean microvascular flow index (MFI) in the MB group was 2.78, compared to 2.51 in the control group. MMRM analysis demonstrated that MB significantly improved MFI (least squares mean difference [95% CI]: 0.21 [0.09, 0.33], P=0.001), with significant increases observed as early as 1 hour post-intervention (T1: 0.24 [0.06, 0.42], P=0.009), and this effect persisted up to 24 hours (T24: P=0.005). However, no significant differences were observed between the groups in 28-day mortality (25.0% [9/36] vs 41.7% [15/36], P=0.200) or organ support-free days (20.0 [1.0-22.0] vs 16.0 [1.3-22.0], P=0.910). Conclusions: Although MB improved sublingual microcirculatory parameters, these improvements did not translate into benefits in organ function or survival outcomes. Trial Registration: chictr.org.cn ChiCTR 2400081549.
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.