↓ Skip to main content

Clinical impact of stress dose steroids in patients with septic shock: insights from the PROWESS-Shock trial

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical impact of stress dose steroids in patients with septic shock: insights from the PROWESS-Shock trial
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0921-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Póvoa, Jorge I F Salluh, Maria L Martinez, Raquel Guillamat-Prats, Dianne Gallup, Hussein R Al-Khalidi, B Taylor Thompson, V Marco Ranieri, Antonio Artigas

Abstract

The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of the administration of intravenous steroids, alone or in conjunction with drotrecogin-alfa (activated) (DrotAA), on the outcomes in septic shock patients. We performed a sub-study of the PROWESS-Shock trial (septic shock patients who received fluids and vasopressors above a predefined threshold for at least 4 hours were randomized to receive either DrotAA or placebo for 96 hours). A propensity score for the administration of intravenous steroids for septic shock at baseline was constructed using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazards model using inverse probability of treatment weighting of the propensity score was used to estimate the effect of intravenous steroids, alone or in conjunction with DrotAA, on 28-day and 90-day all-cause mortality. A total of 1695 patients were enrolled of which 49.5% received intravenous steroids for treatment of septic shock at baseline (DrotAA + steroids N = 436; DrotAA + no steroids N = 414; placebo + steroids N = 403; placebo + no steroids N = 442). The propensity weighted risk of 28-day as well as 90-day mortality in those treated vs. those not treated with steroids did not differ among those randomized to DrotAA vs. placebo (interaction p-value = 0.38 and p = 0.27, respectively) nor was a difference detected within each randomized treatment. Similarly, the course of vasopressor use and cardiovascular SOFA did not appear to be influenced by steroid therapy. In patients with lung infection (N = 744), abdominal infection (N = 510), Gram-positive sepsis (N = 420) and Gram-negative sepsis (N = 461), the propensity weighted risk of 28-day as well as 90-day mortality in those treated vs. those not treated with steroids did not differ among those randomized to DrotAA vs. placebo (interaction 28-day, p = 0.65, p = 0.58, p = 0.49, p = 0.12; 90-day, p = 0.75, p = 0.56, p = 0.18, p = 0.12, respectively) nor was a difference detected within each randomized treatment. In the present study of septic shock patients, after adjustment for treatment selection bias, we were unable to find noticeable positive impact from intravenous steroids for treatment of septic shock at baseline either in patients randomized for DrotAA or placebo. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00604214 . Registered 24 January 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 102 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 13%
Other 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 53%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 31 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,332,855
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,630
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,632
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#308
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 395,408 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.