SynthesisJournal of medicine and life2026
Clinical benefits and risks of high-dose intravenous vitamin C: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of medicine and life, 2026. 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.
- High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C in Critical Illness: A Translational Exposure-Response Framework for Biomarker-Guided Precision Therapy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Glutathione for skin lightening via intravenous, oral, and topical routes: a critical narrative review of current evidence, safety, and the evidence-practice gap.Journal of medicine and life · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-dose intravenous vitamin C (IVC) achieves plasma concentrations that are not attainable by oral administration and has been investigated as an adjunct in sepsis, oncology, and symptom management. To synthesize the evidence regarding the clinical benefits and risks of high-dose IVC, as well as the potential advantages of on-site infusion, a PRISMA-informed search of PubMed/PMC, Scopus, and Web of Science (2010-2025) was conducted, prioritizing randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and high-quality observational studies. Pharmacokinetic and mechanistic studies of IVC support plausible physiologic benefits through antioxidant effects, catecholamine biosynthesis, and immune modulation, with recent evidence showing down regulation of pro-inflammatory STAT1/PD-L1 pathways in experimental sepsis. Oncology phase I and II studies demonstrate safety and quality-of-life improvements; a randomized phase II pancreatic trial reported a promising survival benefit when combined with chemotherapy. Some of the major risks include oxalate nephropathy and hemolysis in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, especially with very large or repeated doses, suggesting pre-screening to avoid these risks. Furthermore, the literature on home infusion and IV therapies is limited; however, the expanding home infusion infrastructure offers an avenue for monitored IVC delivery. In conclusion, evidence does not support routine use of high-dose IVC in sepsis, and its role in oncology remains supportive and exploratory, with potential risks requiring caution. Furthermore, interest in home-based infusion services is increasing in several healthcare systems, although clinical outcome data specific to high-dose IVC in these settings remain limited.
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.