ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Efficacy of thiamine (vitamin B1) in sepsis and septic shock: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mitochondrial dysfunction in sepsis: nutritional strategies for restoring bioenergetic homeostasis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a meta-analysis evaluating thiamine's efficacy for sepsis and septic shock to support its clinical use.
methodsThe meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on patients with sepsis and septic shock evaluated the efficacy of intravenous thiamine. Articles were retrieved from online databases. Qualities of included studies were assessed.
resultsNine studies enrolling 520 patients were included. Regarding bias risk assessment of studies, two articles were classified as low risk, three were categorized as raising some concerns, and four were identified as high risk. Patients in the thiamine group were significantly associated with decreased proportion of Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT, Odds Ratio [OR = 0.26], p = 0.0007), decreased 24 h lactate level (Mean Difference [MD = -0.35], p = 0.004), and larger 24 h SOFA score change (MD = 1.15, p < 0.00001). No statistical significance was detected in short-time mortality (OR = 0.78, p = 0.18) and 24 h lactate change (MD = 0.09, p = 0.36) between the two groups. In the thiamine-deficient subgroup (2 studies, 51 patients), exploratory analysis indicated a potential short-term mortality reduction with thiamine (OR = 0.18, p = 0.01), though limited by the small sample size.
conclusionThis meta-analysis preliminarily suggested that thiamine may exert a potential role in improving organ dysfunction among patients with sepsis and septic shock. No significant benefit of thiamine in reducing short-term mortality was observed. It is important to note that the total number of patients included in this meta-analysis is relatively small, which limits the statistical power and external validity of the results.
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.