↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Vasopressors in septic shock: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Vasopressors in septic shock: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s80060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Feihu Zhou, Zhi Mao, Xian-Tao Zeng, Hongjun Kang, Hui Liu, Liang Pan, Peter C Hou

Abstract

Vasopressor agents are often prescribed in septic shock. However, their effects remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effects among different types of vasopressor agents. We searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception until December 2014. Randomized controlled trials in adults with septic shock that evaluated different vasopressor agents were selected. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Twenty-one trials (n=3,819) met inclusion criteria, which compared eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations (norepinephrine [NE], dopamine [DA], vasopressin [VP], epinephrine [EN], terlipressin [TP], phenylephrine [PE], TP+NE, TP + dobutamine [DB], NE+DB, NE+EN, and NE + dopexamine [DX]). Except for the superiority of NE over DA, the mortality of patients treated with any vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination was not significantly different. Compared to DA, NE was found to be associated with decreased cardiac adverse events, heart rate (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.95, -0.25; P=0.03), and cardiac index (SMD: -0.73; 95% CI: -1.14, -0.03; P=0.004) and increased systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.45; P<0.0001). This Bayesian meta-analysis revealed a possible rank of probability of mortality among the eleven vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations; from lowest to highest, they are NE+DB, EN, TP, NE+EN, TP+NE, VP, TP+DB, NE, PE, NE+DX, and DA. In terms of survival, NE may be superior to DA. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any other vasopressor agent or vasopressor combination is superior to another. When compared to DA, NE is associated with decreased heart rate, cardiac index, and cardiovascular adverse events, as well as increased SVRI. The effects of vasopressor agents or vasopressor combinations on mortality in patients with septic shock require further investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 22%
Other 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Unspecified 7 13%
Other 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 69%
Unspecified 8 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2019.
All research outputs
#3,522,621
of 13,079,903 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#201
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,659
of 230,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#13
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,079,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.