ReviewReports (MDPI)2025
High-Stakes Hormone: Vasopressin Use as a Last-Line Therapy for Shock in Pediatrics-A Narrative Review.
Review in Reports (MDPI), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Clinical Significance: Shock in pediatric patients remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with refractory cases posing significant challenges. While catecholamines like norepinephrine and epinephrine are standard vasopressors, vasopressin (AVP) has emerged as a potential adjunct therapy. However, its role in pediatric shock remains controversial due to concerns about efficacy, safety, and appropriate use. This review assesses the current evidence on AVP in pediatric shock. Methods and Results: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, focusing on studies published in the last five years to capture recent advancements. Articles on AVP's mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, clinical applications, and safety were included. For background information, studies were not limited by publication date. AVP increases mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) yet does not significantly reduce mortality. While AVP may be useful in catecholamine-resistant vasoplegia, its advantage over conventional vasopressors remains uncertain. Concerns about ischemic complications, myocardial dysfunction, and thrombocytopenia further limit its routine use. Conclusions: AVP may serve as an adjunct therapy in catecholamine-resistant vasoplegia, but safety concerns and unclear benefits restrict its routine use. Further research is needed to determine the optimal dosing, patient selection, and long-term outcomes. Until then, AVP should remain a last-line therapy when conventional vasopressors fail.
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.