Corticosteroids for Septic Shock

Herbert S. Heineman; Bruce M. Smith; David L. Oshin; John N. Sheagren; Lerner B. Hinshaw; Charles L. Sprung; Panagiota V. Caralis; Eileen H. Marcial; Mark A. Gelbard; Robert C. Duncan; Edward H. Kass

doi:10.1056/NEJM198502213120810

Corticosteroids for Septic Shock

Herbert S. Heineman, Bruce M. Smith, David L. Oshin, John N. Sheagren, Lerner B. Hinshaw, Charles L. Sprung, Panagiota V. Caralis, Eileen H. Marcial, Mark A. Gelbard, Robert C. Duncan, Edward H. Kass

Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

To the Editor: Publication of the latest study on corticosteroids in septic shock, by Sprung al. (Nov. 1 issue),¹ expands the body of knowledge on this difficult topic, but it is hard to say in which direction. Depending on whether one is for or against steroids, one may conclude either that the ultimate mortality is the same but shock is reversed, or that shock is reversed but the ultimate mortality is the same. (The accompanying editorial by Kass² seems to lean in the latter direction.) Additional information might help us to understand the real contribution of steroids in these cases:.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	509-512
Number of pages	4
Journal	New England Journal of Medicine
Volume	312
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198502213120810
State	Published - Feb 21 1985

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Medicine(all)

Access to Document

10.1056/NEJM198502213120810

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Corticosteroids for Septic Shock'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Corticosteroids for Septic Shock. / Heineman, Herbert S.; Smith, Bruce M.; Oshin, David L.; Sheagren, John N.; Hinshaw, Lerner B.; Sprung, Charles L.; Caralis, Panagiota V.; Marcial, Eileen H.; Gelbard, Mark A.; Duncan, Robert C.; Kass, Edward H.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 312, No. 8, 21.02.1985, p. 509-512.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter

@article{c89740033623457f98242a054fc95dc8,

title = "Corticosteroids for Septic Shock",

abstract = "To the Editor: Publication of the latest study on corticosteroids in septic shock, by Sprung al. (Nov. 1 issue),1 expands the body of knowledge on this difficult topic, but it is hard to say in which direction. Depending on whether one is for or against steroids, one may conclude either that the ultimate mortality is the same but shock is reversed, or that shock is reversed but the ultimate mortality is the same. (The accompanying editorial by Kass2 seems to lean in the latter direction.) Additional information might help us to understand the real contribution of steroids in these cases:.",

author = "Heineman, {Herbert S.} and Smith, {Bruce M.} and Oshin, {David L.} and Sheagren, {John N.} and Hinshaw, {Lerner B.} and Sprung, {Charles L.} and Caralis, {Panagiota V.} and Marcial, {Eileen H.} and Gelbard, {Mark A.} and Duncan, {Robert C.} and Kass, {Edward H.}",

year = "1985",

month = feb,

day = "21",

doi = "10.1056/NEJM198502213120810",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "312",

pages = "509--512",

journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",

issn = "0028-4793",

publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corticosteroids for Septic Shock

AU - Heineman, Herbert S.

AU - Smith, Bruce M.

AU - Oshin, David L.

AU - Sheagren, John N.

AU - Hinshaw, Lerner B.

AU - Sprung, Charles L.

AU - Caralis, Panagiota V.

AU - Marcial, Eileen H.

AU - Gelbard, Mark A.

AU - Duncan, Robert C.

AU - Kass, Edward H.

PY - 1985/2/21

Y1 - 1985/2/21

N2 - To the Editor: Publication of the latest study on corticosteroids in septic shock, by Sprung al. (Nov. 1 issue),1 expands the body of knowledge on this difficult topic, but it is hard to say in which direction. Depending on whether one is for or against steroids, one may conclude either that the ultimate mortality is the same but shock is reversed, or that shock is reversed but the ultimate mortality is the same. (The accompanying editorial by Kass2 seems to lean in the latter direction.) Additional information might help us to understand the real contribution of steroids in these cases:.

AB - To the Editor: Publication of the latest study on corticosteroids in septic shock, by Sprung al. (Nov. 1 issue),1 expands the body of knowledge on this difficult topic, but it is hard to say in which direction. Depending on whether one is for or against steroids, one may conclude either that the ultimate mortality is the same but shock is reversed, or that shock is reversed but the ultimate mortality is the same. (The accompanying editorial by Kass2 seems to lean in the latter direction.) Additional information might help us to understand the real contribution of steroids in these cases:.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021966731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021966731&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM198502213120810

DO - 10.1056/NEJM198502213120810

M3 - Letter

C2 - 3969112

AN - SCOPUS:0021966731

VL - 312

SP - 509

EP - 512

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 8

ER -