A Survey of Stated Physician Practices and Beliefs on the Use of Steroids in Pediatric Fluid and/or Vasoactive Infusion-Dependent Shock*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Limited evidence exists on the use of corticosteroids in pediatric shock. We sought to determine physicians' practices and beliefs with regard to the management of pediatric shock. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, Internet-based survey. SETTING: Canada. SUBJECTS: Physicians identified as practicing pediatric intensive care in any of 15 academic centers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy of 97 physicians (72.2%) responded. Physicians stated that they were more likely to prescribe steroids for septic shock than for shock following cardiac surgery (odds ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-4.3]) or trauma (odds ratio, 11.46 [95% CI, 2.5-51.2]), and 91.4% (64/70) would administer steroids to patients who had received 60 cc/kg of fluid and two or more vasoactive medications. Thirty-five percent of respondents (25/70) reported that they rarely or never conducted adrenal axis testing before giving steroids to patients in shock. Eighty-seven percent of respondents (61/70) stated that the role of steroids in the treatment of fluid and/or vasoactive drug-dependent shock needed to be clarified and that 84.3% would be willing to randomize patients into a trial of steroid efficacy who were fluid resuscitated and on one high-dose vasoactive medication. However, 74.3% stated that they would start open-label steroids in patients who required two high-dose vasoactive medications. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides information on the stated beliefs and practices of pediatric critical care physicians with regard to the use of steroids in fluid and/or vasoactive drug-dependent shock. Clinicians feel that the role of steroids in shock still requires clarification and that they would be willing to randomize patients into a trial. This survey may be useful as an initial framework for the development of a future trial on the use of steroids in pediatric shock.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".