Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 561

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in Adults: A Systematic Review

Open access
Annane, Djillali, Bellissant, Eric, Bollaert, Pierre-Edouard, Briegel, Josef, Confalonieri, Marco, De Gaudio, Raffaele, Keh, Didier, Kupfer, Yizhak, Oppert, Michael, Meduri, G. Umberto·2009·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2009.815
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: The benefit of corticosteroids in severe sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: We examined the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in severe sepsis and septic shock and the influence of dose and duration. DATA SOURCES: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (through March 2009) databases as well as reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings, and we contacted trial authors. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of corticosteroids vs placebo or supportive treatment in adult patients with severe sepsis/septic shock per the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine consensus definition were included. DATA EXTRACTION: All reviewers agreed on trial eligibility. One reviewer extracted data, which were checked by the other reviewers and by the trials' authors whenever possible. Some unpublished data were obtained from the trials' authors. The primary outcome for this review was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: We identified 17 randomized trials (n = 2138) and 3 quasi-randomized trials (n = 246) that had acceptable methodological quality to pool in a meta-analysis. Twenty-eight-day mortality for treated vs control patients was 388/1099 (35.3%) vs 400/1039 (38.5%) in randomized trials (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.00; P = .05; I(2) = 53% by random-effects model) and 28/121 (23.1%) vs 24/125 (19.2%) in quasi-randomized trials (RR, 1.05, 95% CI, 0.69-1.58; P = .83). In 12 trials investigating prolonged low-dose corticosteroid treatment, 28-day mortality for treated vs control patients was 236/629 (37.5%) vs 264/599 (44%) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97; P = .02). This treatment increased 28-day shock reversal (6 trials; 322/481 [66.9%] vs 276/471 [58.6%]; RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23; P = .02; I(2) = 4%) and reduced intensive care unit length of stay by 4.49 days (8 trials; 95% CI, -7.04 to -1.94; P < .001; I(2) = 0%) without increasing the risk of gastroduodenal bleeding (13 trials; 65/800 [8.1%] vs 56/764 [7.3%]; P = .50; I(2) = 0%), superinfection (14 trials; 184/998 [18.4%] vs 170/950 [17.9%]; P = .92; I(2) = 8%), or neuromuscular weakness (3 trials; 4/407 [1%] vs 7/404 [1.7%]; P = .58; I(2) = 30%). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (9 trials; 363/703 [51.6%] vs 308/670 [46%]; P < .001; I(2) = 0%) and hypernatremia (3 trials; 127/404 [31.4%] vs 77/401 [19.2%]; P < .001; I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid therapy has been used in varied doses for sepsis and related syndromes for more than 50 years, with no clear benefit on mortality. Since 1998, studies have consistently used prolonged low-dose corticosteroid therapy, and analysis of this subgroup suggests a beneficial drug effect on short-term mortality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.815

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Annane, D., Bellissant, E., Bollaert, P.-E., Briegel, J., Confalonieri, M., De Gaudio, R., Keh, D., Kupfer, Y., Oppert, M., & Meduri, G. U.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2009-06-10
Volume
301
Issue
22
Pages
2362
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2009.815
OpenAlex
W2059130611
Cited by
561
References
11
FWCI
36.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.