↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous vitamin C monotherapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous vitamin C monotherapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13613-023-01116-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zheng-Yii Lee, Luis Ortiz-Reyes, Charles Chin Han Lew, M. Shahnaz Hasan, Lu Ke, Jayshil J. Patel, Christian Stoppe, Daren K. Heyland

Abstract

A recent landmark randomized controlled trial (RCT) in septic patients demonstrated an increased risk of death and persistent organ dysfunction with intravenous Vitamin C (IVVC) monotherapy, which represents a disparate result from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA). We performed an updated SRMA of IVVC monotherapy to summarize and explore heterogeneity across current trials and conduct trial sequential analysis (TSA) to guard against type-I or type-II statistical errors. RCTs evaluating IVVC in adult critically ill patients were included. Four databases were searched from inception to 22 June 2022 without language restrictions. The primary outcome was overall mortality. Random effect meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio. TSA for mortality was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect model, alpha 5%, beta 10%, and relative risk reduction (RRR) of 30%, 25%, and 20%. We included 16 RCTs (n = 2130). IVVC monotherapy is associated with significant reduction in overall mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.89; p = 0.002; I2 = 42%]. This finding is supported by TSA using RRR of 30% and 25%, and sensitivity analysis using fixed-effect meta-analysis. However, the certainty of our mortality finding was rated low using GRADE due to the serious risk of bias and inconsistency. In a priori subgroup analyses, we found no differences between single vs multicenter, higher (≥ 10,000 mg/day) vs lower dose and sepsis vs non-sepsis trials. Post-hoc, we found no differences in subgroup analysis of earlier (< 24 h) vs delayed treatment, longer (> 4 days) vs shorter treatment duration, and low vs other risk of bias studies. IVVC may have the greatest benefit in trials that enrolled patients above (i.e., > 37.5%; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.79) vs below (i.e., ≤ 37.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.16) median control group mortality (test for subgroup differences: p = 0.06), and TSA supported this. IVVC monotherapy may be associated with mortality benefits in critically ill patients, particularly in patients with a high risk of dying. Given the low certainty of evidence, this potentially life-saving therapy warrants further studies to identify the optimal timing, dosage, treatment duration, and patient population that will benefit most from IVVC monotherapy. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022323880. Registered 7th May 2022.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 1 6%
Unknown 11 61%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Unknown 12 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,204,031
of 24,849,927 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#419
of 1,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,872
of 411,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,849,927 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 411,587 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.