ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Outcomes Between Milrinone and Dobutamine in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Observational Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of dobutamine versus milrinone in cardiogenic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Global cardiology science & practice · 2026Article
- Managing Arrhythmias in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights Into Milrinone and Dobutamine Therapy.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes between milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. The search strategy involved a comprehensive exploration of electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from the the inception of each database up to the 31st of January 2024. A combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms was employed to identify relevant studies. The outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of intensive care unit (ICU stay), and length of hospital stay. A total of seven studies were included in this meta-analysis enrolling 3,841 patients (2,331 in the dobutamine group and 1,510 in the milrinone group). Pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients receiving dobutamine compared to patients receiving milrinone (relative risk (RR): 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02 to 2.01, p-value: 0.04). However, the length of hospital stay and length of ICU stay were not significantly different between the two groups. Limited data are available to favor the use of one inotropic agent over another. Dobutamine might lead to a shorter hospital length of stay, but there is also a risk of increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies with adequate power are needed to validate these observations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.