MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072393428 · doi:10.1086/599343

Safety and Efficacy of Corticosteroids for the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2009· review· en· W2072393428 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Sligl, Danny A. Milner, Sugantha Sundar, Wendy Mphatswe, Sumit R. Majumdar

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal Hormones and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockMeta-analysisSuperinfectionCochrane LibraryIncidence (geometry)Relative riskRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineConfidence intervalClinical endpointMortality rateShock (circulatory)SurgerySepsisImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Septic shock is common and results in significant morbidity and mortality. Adjunctive treatment with corticosteroids is common, but definitive data are lacking. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid therapy among patients with septic shock. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized trials and observational studies published from January 1993 through December 2008. Studies were selected if they included adults with septic shock, discussed treatment with intravenous corticosteroids, and reported at least 1 outcome of interest (e.g., mortality, shock reversal, or incidence of superinfection). Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility, assessed methodologic quality, and abstracted data. RESULTS: Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for 28-day all-cause mortality, shock reversal at 7 days, and incidence of superinfection with use of random-effects models. Analyses, stratified by adrenal responsiveness, were prespecified. Eight studies (6 randomized trials) involving a total of 1876 patients were selected. Overall, corticosteroid therapy did not result in a statistically significant difference in mortality (42.2% [369 of 875 patients] vs. 38.4% [384 of 1001]; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.18). A statistically significant difference in the incidence of shock reversal at 7 days was observed between patients who received corticosteroids and those who did not (64.9% [314 of 484 patients] vs. 47.5% [228 of 480]; RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.64), with similar point estimates for both corticotropin stimulation test responders and nonresponders. No statistically significant difference was found in the incidence of superinfection between patients treated with corticosteroids and patients not treated with corticosteroids (25.3% [114 of 450 patients] vs. 22.7% [100 of 441]; RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with septic shock, corticosteroid therapy appears to be safe but does not reduce 28-day all-cause mortality rates. It does, however, significantly reduce the incidence of vasopressor-dependent shock, which may be a clinically worthwhile goal.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.035
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations162
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicAdrenal Hormones and DisordersFrench-language works237,207