Dexmedetomidine versus usual care in adult patients with septic shock receiving vasopressors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Isaac B Wolfkind, Luke T Geftos, William K Mitchell, Ronan J McOsker, Jose L Puglisi, Baljit S Gill

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Isaac B WolfkindFrom the California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, USA (IBW, LTG, WKM, RJM, JLP) and Sutter Health, Sacramento, USA (BSG).

Luke T GeftosFrom the California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, USA (IBW, LTG, WKM, RJM, JLP) and Sutter Health, Sacramento, USA (BSG).

William K MitchellFrom the California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, USA (IBW, LTG, WKM, RJM, JLP) and Sutter Health, Sacramento, USA (BSG).

Ronan J McOskerFrom the California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, USA (IBW, LTG, WKM, RJM, JLP) and Sutter Health, Sacramento, USA (BSG).

Jose L PuglisiFrom the California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, USA (IBW, LTG, WKM, RJM, JLP) and Sutter Health, Sacramento, USA (BSG).

Baljit S GillFrom the California Northstate University College of Medicine, Elk Grove, USA (IBW, LTG, WKM, RJM, JLP) and Sutter Health, Sacramento, USA (BSG).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeptic shock is characterised by sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to fluid resuscitation efforts. Further treatment often requires mechanical ventilation, typically requiring the use of sedatives to provide analgesia, sedation and anxiolysis. One sedative, dexmedetomidine, is an α2 agonist that has demonstrated potential in improving haemodynamic and clinical outcomes in recent randomised controlled trials. However, support for these claims has been inconsistent across individual studies.

objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in comparison to other sedatives.

designSystematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed across five electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE and clinicaltrials.gov) from inception up to June 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled studies that utilised adult patients diagnosed with septic shock and receiving sedation with dexmedetomidine or any other. Excluded types of studies included non-RCTs, animal studies, paediatric cases, procedural sedation, trials without reported outcomes and studies that do not report desired outcomes.

resultsOur meta-analysis included eight randomised controlled trials (

conclusionDexmedetomidine may improve early organ dysfunction; however, evidence for long-term clinical benefits remains limited.

Identifiers

PMID42244837

DOI10.1097/EA9.0000000000000113

PMCPMC13232910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.