Discordant Evidence on Corticosteroids in Sepsis: A Meta-Research Study

Background Despite numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs), current sepsis guidelines continue to issue only weak recommendations for corticosteroids. We examined the clinical scope, underlying study pools, and mortality conclusions of SRs evaluating corticosteroids for sepsis. Methods We conducted a meta-research study of SRs on corticosteroids in sepsis (2015 to 2025), extracting SR characteristics, mortality results, and included RCTs. Study-pool overlap was assessed using an SRxRCT inclusion matrix, Jaccard similarity (J), and hierarchical clustering. SRs and RCTs were classified according to standardized Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) profiles. We explored discordance in short-term mortality conclusions among clinically comparable SRs and potential associations with study-pool composition, target populations, and methodological characteristics. Results Forty-two SRs including 121 unique RCTs were identified. More than half of pairwise SR comparisons shared no RCTs, and only three pairs showed high overlap (J>0.8). SRs addressing similar intervention and target population profiles frequently relied on different study pools. Among 38 SRs with short-term mortality meta-analyses, 15 (39%) reported benefit and 23 (61%) no evidence of effect. Discordance occurred exclusively among SRs evaluating broad, non-specific corticosteroid strategies; conclusions were consistent for hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone (benefit) and hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine (no evidence of effect). SRs including sepsis +/- shock populations more frequently reported benefit than those restricted to septic shock (62% vs 22%), although estimates were imprecise. No single methodological or clinical factor consistently explained discordance. Conclusions SRs addressing apparently similar clinical questions frequently synthesized different underlying evidence bases and reported discordant conclusions. Guideline developers should therefore consider not only methodological quality and reported PICO, but also whether the RCTs included in an SR adequately represent the intended clinical question. Clinically coherent evidence syntheses may improve the interpretability of pooled treatment effects and support more targeted corticosteroid therapy in sepsis.