↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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, Xiantao 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 100 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Computer Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#3,452,687
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#166
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,925
of 277,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#6
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 277,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.