Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-Analysis: The Effect of Steroids on Survival and Shock during Sepsis Depends on the Dose

Minneci, Peter C., Deans, Katherine J., Banks, Steven M., Eichacker, Peter Q., Natanson, Charles·2004·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses demonstrated that high-dose glucocorticoids were not beneficial in sepsis. Recently, lower-dose glucocorticoids have been studied. PURPOSE: To compare recent trials of glucocorticoids for sepsis with previous glucocorticoid trials. DATA SOURCES: Systematic MEDLINE search for studies published between 1988 and 2003. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of sepsis that examined the effects of glucocorticoids on survival or vasopressor requirements. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently collected data on patient and study characteristics, treatment interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 5 included trials revealed a consistent and beneficial effect of glucocorticoids on survival (I2 = 0%; relative benefit, 1.23, [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.50]; P = 0.036) and shock reversal (I2 = 0%; relative benefit, 1.71 [CI, 1.29 to 2.26]; P < 0.001). These effects were the same regardless of adrenal function. In contrast, 8 trials published before 1989 demonstrated a survival disadvantage with steroid treatment (I2 = 14%; relative benefit, 0.89 [CI, 0.82 to 0.97]; P = 0.008). In comparison with the earlier trials, the more recent trials administered steroids later after patients met enrollment criteria (median, 23 hours vs. <2 hours; P = 0.02), for longer courses (6 days vs. 1 day; P = 0.01), and in lower total dosages (hydrocortisone equivalents, 1209 mg vs. 23 975 mg; P = 0.01) to patients with higher control group mortality rates (mean, 57% vs. 34%; P = 0.06) who were more likely to be vasopressor-dependent (100% vs. 65%; P = 0.03). The relationship between steroid dose and survival was linear, characterized by benefit at low doses and increasing harm at higher doses (P = 0.02). LIMITATIONS: We could not analyze time-related improvements in medical care and potential bias secondary to nonreporting of negative study results. CONCLUSIONS: Although short courses of high-dose glucocorticoids decreased survival during sepsis, a 5- to 7-day course of physiologic hydrocortisone doses with subsequent tapering increases survival rate and shock reversal in patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-141-1-200407060-00014

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Minneci, P. C., Deans, K. J., Banks, S. M., Eichacker, P. Q., & Natanson, C.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2004-07-06
Volume
141
Issue
1
Pages
47-56
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2107348946
Cited by
354
References
4
FWCI
27.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.