ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Clinical practice in using corticosteroids and adjunctive sepsis therapies at the bedside among European ICUs: an ESICM-endorsed survey.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2026. 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.
- Innovation in sepsis trials: rethinking endpoints, statistics and patient stratification.Intensive care medicine experimental · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis and septic shock remain major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and management is largely based on source control, antimicrobial therapy, and supportive care. Despite limited high-quality evidence, adjunctive therapies targeting the dysregulated host response involving immune dysfunction, coagulopathy, and endothelial injury, steroids, vasopressors, and adjunctive therapies are frequently used in clinical practice. This survey aimed to describe real-world patterns of sepsis therapy across Europe.
methodsWe conducted an open, web-based, multinational survey endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI). The survey was distributed through professional mailing lists, newsletters, and national society networks. A structured 30-item questionnaire collected information on respondent demographics, ICU characteristics, availability of adjunctive therapies, clinical indications, triggers for initiation, and duration of treatment. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 442 physicians completed the survey. Data were analyzed descriptively and are presented as proportions and frequencies.
resultsMore than 80% of respondents reported use of at least one adjunctive therapy for septic shock within the previous year. Corticosteroids were used by over 90% of clinicians, predominantly hydrocortisone for septic shock. Considerable variability was observed regarding indications, timing of initiation, and duration of therapy. Extracorporeal blood purification techniques were used by approximately 75% of respondents, most frequently hemoadsorption in patients with refractory shock; high cost and limited availability were the main barriers to broader implementation. Intravenous immunoglobulins were used by approximately one-third of clinicians, often guided by measured immunoglobulin levels or perceived immune dysfunction. Additional vasoactive and inotropic agents, including levosimendan, methylene blue, and beta-blockers, were employed in selected cases. In contrast, specific immunomodulatory therapies such as interleukin (IL)-1receptor antibodies were rarely used. Across all adjunctive strategies, marked heterogeneity in practice patterns was evident.
conclusionAdjunctive therapies are widely used in European ICUs, particularly in patients with severe or refractory sepsis, despite limited supporting evidence. The substantial variability in practice highlights ongoing clinical uncertainty and underscores the need for well-designed randomized trials to inform evidence-based and individualized treatment strategies.
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.