Citing comprehensive meta analysis 3.3 calculations

If the original study did not incorporate a power analysis or mention a one-sided or two-sided test, a two-sided test was assumed.ДЄll three studies reported mortality rates between the experimental arm with the use of vitamin C and the control arm without vitamin C. The low-dose and high-dose groups were combined into the vitamin C group for meta-analysis. randomized patients into three groups: low-dose ascorbic acid, high-dose ascorbic acid, and placebo.

Mortality was considered the primary outcome for this meta-analysis, and a fail-safe N test was carried out to assess publication bias. Considering diversity in the study populations and differences in the treatments including varying doses of vitamin C, a random-effects model was used in all analyses. ДЄ meta-analysis was performed on these three outcomes using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3.3.070). Three clinical outcomes were reported by at least two articles, which were mortality, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU-LOS), and vasopressor duration. included intravenous hydrocortisone and thiamine, in addition to vitamin C, thereby introducing confounders into the study. study was a before-after study with propensity score adjustment. were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of small sample sizes, while the Marik et al. Even though all three studies looked at treating septic patients with vitamin C, the quality of results varied due to differences in study design, inclusion criteria, and sample size. Table 1 describes the characteristics of the included studies and assesses the quality and potential biases of each study. A search of EMBASE and PubMed similar to that of Sheikh and Horner was performed on 8 June 2018, but no further full-text articles were found therefore, the three papers reviewed by Sheikh and Horner were included in the meta-analysis. paper, the three studies summarized by Teng et al. After removing one of the duplicate studies-the Natarajan et al. Although the authors reasoned that most deaths in modern burn centers are from septic shock, this paper was deemed irrelevant for the review and meta-analysis on sepsis and vitamin C. In addition, the study reported by Tanaka et al. , were derived from the same clinical trial. summarized five pertinent papers in their review however, two of the original articles described in their review, one written by Fowler et al.

completed a review of the literature using PubMed in terms of sepsis and vitamin C. Sheikh and Horner conducted a literature search of EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed through January 2018 surrounding sepsis and intravenous vitamin C Teng et al.

Citing comprehensive meta analysis 3.3 calculations