ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Comparison of clinical efficacy and secondary infections between conventional-dose and high-dose glucocorticoid in hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome: a dual-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlucocorticoids (GC) are commonly administered during the febrile and hypotensive phases of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) to alleviate inflammation and capillary leakage. However, clinical dosing regimens show marked variability. This study aims to evaluate the clinical necessity of high-dose GC therapy during the acute phase of HFRS.
methodsA retrospective study involving 807 HFRS patients admitted to two centers was conducted. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression models were used to compare the effects of conventional-dose and high-dose GC on HFRS treatment outcomes and the risk of secondary infections.
resultsThere were no significant differences in hospital stay, acute-phase fluid requirement, renal replacement rates, mechanical ventilation needs, severe hemorrhagic complications, or mortality between HFRS patients receiving conventional or high-dose GC. Among patients with a shock phase, the secondary infections rate was significantly higher with high-dose GC compared to conventional-dose (43.48% vs. 23.91%, p = 0.005). High-dose GC emerged as an independent risk factor for secondary infections (OR 2.88, 95%CI 1.41-5.88), while prophylactic antibiotics served as an independent protective factor (OR 0.29, 95%CI 0.13-0.65). In patients without a shock phase, no significant difference was observed in the effect of the two GC doses on secondary infections. However, GC therapy ≥ 4 days was an independent risk factor (OR 2.54, 95%CI 1.21-5.37).
conclusionsHigh-dose GC show no superiority over conventional-dose GC on hospital stay, acute-phase fluid requirement, renal replacement rates, mechanical ventilation needs, severe hemorrhagic complications, or mortality. High-dose GC may increase secondary infections in HFRS patients with a shock phase. GC therapy ≥ 4 days may also increase secondary infections in patients without a shock phase.
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.