***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Introduction The aim of the study was to assess the prognostic importance of basal cortisol concentrations and cortisol response to corticotropin , and to determine the effects of physiological dose steroid therapy on mortality in patients with sepsis . Methods Basal cortisol level and corticotropin stimulation test were performed within 24 hours in all patients . One group ( 20 patients ) received st and ard therapy for sepsis and physiological-dose steroid therapy for 10 days ; the other group ( 20 patients ) received only st and ard therapy for sepsis .  Basal cortisol level was measured on the 14th day in patients who recovered . The outcome of sepsis was compared . Results Only Sequential Organ Failure Assessment ( SOFA ) score was found related to mortality , independent from other factors in multivariate analysis . No significant difference was found between the changes in the percentage of SOFA scores of the  steroid therapy group and the st and ard therapy group in survivors , nor between the groups in basal and peak cortisol levels , cortisol response to corticotropin test and mortality . The mortality rates among patients with occult adrenal insufficiencies were 40 % in the steroid therapy group and 55.6 % in the st and ard therapy group . Discussion There was a trend towards a decrease in the mortality rates of the patients with sepsis who received physiological-dose steroid therapy . In the advancing process from sepsis to septic shock , adrenal insufficiency was not frequent as supposed . There was a trend ( that did not reach significance ) towards a decrease in the mortality rates of the patients with sepsis who received physiological-dose steroid therapy CONTEXT The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a major determinant of the host response to stress . The relationship between its activation and patient outcome is not known . OBJECTIVE To evaluate the prognostic value of cortisol levels and a short corticotropin stimulation test in patients with septic shock . DESIGN AND SETTING Prospect i ve inception cohort study conducted between October 1991 and September 1995 in 2 teaching hospital adult intensive care units in France . PARTICIPANTS A total of 189 consecutive patients who met clinical criteria for septic shock . INTERVENTION A short corticotropin stimulation test was performed in all patients by intravenously injecting 0.25 mg of tetracosactrin ; blood sample s were taken immediately before the test ( T0 ) and 30 ( T30 ) and 60 ( T60 ) minutes afterward . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Twenty-eight-day mortality as a function of variables collected at the onset of septic shock , including cortisol levels before the corticotropin test and the cortisol response to corticotropin ( delta max , defined as the difference between T0 and the highest value between T30 and T60 ) . RESULTS The 28-day mortality was 58 % ( 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 51%-65 % ) and median time to death was 17 days ( 95 % CI , 14 - 27 days ) . In multivariate analysis , independent predictors of death ( P < or = .001 for all ) were McCabe score greater than 0 , organ system failure score greater than 2 , arterial lactate level greater than 2.8 mmol/L , ratio of PaO2 to fraction of inspired oxygen no more than 160 mm Hg , cortisol level at T0 greater than 34 microg/dL and delta max no more than 9 microg/dL. Three groups of patient prognoses were identified : good ( cortisol level at T0 < or = 34 microg/dL and delta max > 9 microg/dL ; 28-day mortality rate , 26 % ) , intermediate ( cortisol level at T0 34 microg/dL and delta max < or = 9 microg/dL or cortisol level at T0 > 34 microg/dL and delta max > 9 microg/dL ; 28-day mortality rate , 67 % ) , and poor ( cortisol level at T0 > 34 microg/dL and delta max < or = 9 microg/dL ; 28-day mortality rate , 82 % ) . CONCLUSION Our data suggest that a short corticotropin test has a good prognostic value and could be helpful in identifying patients with septic shock at high risk for death Within the last few years , increasing evidence of relative adrenal insufficiency in septic shock evoked a re assessment of hydrocortisone therapy . To evaluate the effects of hydrocortisone on the balance between proinflammatory and antiinflammation , 40 patients with septic shock were r and omized in a double-blind crossover study to receive either the first 100 mg of hydrocortisone as a loading dose and 10 mg per hour until Day 3 ( n = 20 ) or placebo ( n = 20 ) , followed by the opposite medication until Day 6 . Hydrocortisone infusion induced an increase of mean arterial pressure , systemic vascular resistance , and a decline of heart rate , cardiac index , and norepinephrine requirement . A reduction of plasma nitrite/nitrate indicated inhibition of nitric oxide formation and correlated with a reduction of vasopressor support . The inflammatory response ( interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 ) , endothelial ( soluble E-selectin ) and neutrophil activation ( expression of CD11b , CD64 ) , and antiinflammatory response ( soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors I and II and interleukin-10 ) were attenuated . In peripheral blood monocytes , human leukocyte antigen-DR expression was only slightly depressed , whereas in vitro phagocytosis and the monocyte-activating cytokine interleukin-12 increased . Hydrocortisone withdrawal induced hemodynamic and immunologic rebound effects . In conclusion , hydrocortisone therapy restored hemodynamic stability and differentially modulated the immunologic response to stress in a way of antiinflammation rather than immunosuppression Reporting harms may cause more trouble and discredit than the fame and glory associated with successful reporting of benefits ( 1 ) . The CONSORT ( Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ) statement , a checklist ( Table 1 ) flow diagram first published in 1996 and revised 5 years later ( 2 , 3 ) , is an effort to st and ardize , and thereby improve , published reports of r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) . One of the additions to the 2001 revision was an item about reporting adverse events . This single item did not do full justice to the importance of harms-related issues . The CONSORT Group met in September 2001 to discuss how to correct this deficiency . We aim ed to provide evidence -based guidance on the reporting of harms in RCTs . First , we search ed MEDLINE , EMBASE , Web of Science , and the Cochrane Library using a wide array of terms related to harms and identified pertinent evidence . We also communicated with experts and review ed bibliographies of identified articles to find additional studies . At a meeting in Montebello , Quebec , Canada , in May 2003 , CONSORT Group members , including several journal editors and additional experts in related fields , held a structured discussion of recommendations about reporting of harms-related issues in RCTs . The discussion s led to a written document that we circulated among the team members for comment . The present manuscript describes our recommendations on the appropriate reporting of harms in RCTs . Table 1 . Original CONSORT Checklist The terminology of harms-related issues in RCTs is confusing and often misleading or misused ( see Glossary ) ( 4 , 5 ) . Safety is a reassuring term that may obscure the real and potentially major harms that drugs and other interventions may cause . We encourage authors to use the term harms instead of safety . In addition to misused terminology , reporting of harms in RCTs has received less attention than reporting of efficacy and effectiveness and is often inadequate ( 6 - 14 ) . In short , both scientific evidence and ethical necessity call for action to improve the quality of reporting of harms in RCTs ( 15 , 16 ) . Here , we present a set of recommendations and accompanying explanations for the proper reporting of harms in RCTs . These recommendations should complement the existing CONSORT statement ( Table 2 ) . Examples are presented on the Annals and CONSORT ( www.consort-statement.org ) Web sites . Table 2 . Checklist of Items To Include When Reporting Harms in R and omized , Controlled Trials Recommendations Title and Abstract Recommendation 1 . If the study collected data on harms and benefits , the title or abstract should so state . The title should mention harms if the study of harms was a key trial objective . Many phase I and phase II trials , some phase II/III trials , and most phase IV trials ( 17 , 18 ) target harms as primary outcomes . Yet , the title and abstract seldom contain the word harm . Among 375143 entries in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( Cochrane Library , issue 3 , 2003 ) , search ing titles with the search terms harm or harms yielded 337 references ( compared with 55374 for efficacy and 23415 for safety ) . Of the 337 , excluding several irrelevant articles on self-harm or harm reduction , only 3 trial reports and 2 abstract s contained the word harm in their titles . Authors should present information on harms in the abstract . If no important harms occurred , authors should so state . Explicit reference to the reporting of adverse events in the title or abstract is also important for appropriate data base indexing and information retrieval ( 19 ) . Introduction Background Recommendation 2 . If the trial addresses both harms and benefits , the introduction should so state . The introduction states the scientific background and rationale of an RCT . This requires a balanced presentation whereby the possible benefits of the intervention under investigation are outlined along with the possible harms associated with the treatment . R and omized , controlled trials that focus primarily on harms should clearly state this interest when describing the study objectives in the Introduction and in defining these objectives in the Methods . Methods Outcomes Recommendation 3 . List addressed adverse events with definitions for each ( with attention , when relevant , to grading , expected vs. unexpected events , reference to st and ardized and vali date d definitions , and description of new definitions ) . The Methods section should succinctly define the recorded adverse events ( clinical and laboratory ) . Authors should clarify whether the reported adverse events encompass all the recorded adverse events or a selected sample . They should explain how , why , and who selected adverse events for reporting . In trials that do not mention harms-related data , the Methods section should briefly explain the reason for the omission ( for example , the design did not include the collection of any information on harms ) . Authors should also be explicit about separately reporting anticipated and unexpected adverse events . Expectation may influence the incidence of reported or ascertained adverse events . Making participants aware in the consent form of the possibility of a specific adverse event ( priming ) may increase the reporting rate of the event ( 20 ) . Another example of priming is the finding that the rates of withdrawals due to adverse events and the rates of specific adverse events were significantly higher in trials of aspirin , diclofenac , or indomethacin with comparator drugs compared with placebo-controlled trials ( 21 ) . Presumably , participants were more eager to come forth and report an adverse event or to withdraw from treatment when they knew they could not be receiving inactive placebo . Authors should report whether they used st and ardized and vali date d measurement instruments for adverse events . Several medical fields have developed st and ardized scales ( 22 - 32 ) . Use of nonvali date d scales is common . The source document for well-established definitions and scales should be referenced . New definitions for adverse events should be explicit and clear . Authors should describe how they developed and vali date d new scales . For interventions that target healthy individuals ( for example , many preventive interventions ) , any harm , however minor , may be important to capture and report because the balance of harms and benefits may easily lean toward harms in a low-risk population . For other population s and for interventions that improve major outcomes ( for example , survival ) , severe and life-threatening adverse events may be the only ones that are important in the balance of benefits and harms . Recommendation 4 . Clarify how harms-related information was collected ( mode of data collection , timing , attribution methods , intensity of ascertainment , and harms-related monitoring and stopping rules , if pertinent ) . It is important to describe the question naires , interviews , and tests used to collect information on harms , as well as their timing during follow-up . Passive surveillance of harms leads to fewer recorded adverse events than active surveillance ( 4 ) . Open-ended questions may yield different information , both quantitatively and qualitatively , than structured question naires ( 33 ) . Studies of nonsteroidal , anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs ) exemplify how data collection methods can affect the detection and reporting of harms . When selective NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events became available , trials reported more than 10 times as many ulcers when comparing these drugs with older NSAIDs as when older NSAIDs were compared with placebo . In the newer trials , more ulcers were detected because participants had regular endoscopy , and the case definition of ulcers was more sensitive ( 34 ) . Authors should specify the time frame of surveillance for adverse events . Some investigators stop recording adverse events at the end of the intervention period or a certain number of days afterward ( for example , 30 days after discontinuation of drug therapy ) and miss events with long latency ( 35 ) . Surgical trials often capture only the adverse events that occur intraoperatively . Several important surgical complications are likely to occur later . Finally , in crossover trials , delayed events might occur while the patient is taking a subsequent assigned treatment . Attribution is the process of deciding 
    Output:
    
Corticosteroids did not change 28-day all-cause mortality ( 15 trials , n = 2022 , relative risk ( RR ) 0.92 , 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.75 to 1.14 ; r and om effects model ) and hospital mortality ( 13 trials , n = 1418 , RR 0.89 , 95 % CI 0.71 to 1.11 ; r and om effects model ) ; however , there was statistically significant heterogeneity , with some evidence that this was related to the dosing strategy .
REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS Overall , corticosteroids did not change 28-day mortality and hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock .
Long course of low dose corticosteroids reduced 28-day all-cause mortality , and intensive care unit and hospital mortality