Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17390117›Full record

ArticleDer Internist2007

[Endogenous anticoagulant therapy for sepsis. Success and failure].

C J Wiedermann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Internist, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

C J WiedermannAbteilung für Innere Medizin, Zentralkrankenhaus und Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Medizinischen Universität Innsbruck in Bozen, L.-Böhler-Strasse 5, 39100 Bozen. christian.wiedermann@asbz.it

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whereas antithrombin and tifacogin failed to improve clinical outcome in cases of severe sepsis, drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased the chances of survival of patients with this condition. Concerns about efficacy and safety of drotrecogin alfa have been raised because of internal and external validity and internal consistency problems found in the PROWESS study, and because of the drug's single positive pivotal phase III documentation that led to restricted marketing authorisations for only a subgroup of studied patients whose randomisation had not been stratified. Concerns intensified with data from ADDRESS, the PROWESS follow-up, and paediatric studies. It is difficult to make rational and safe recommendations for drotrecogin alfa use on the available evidence. Further trials have been suggested. The relevant bodies should review product approval in light of their own guidelines for marketing authorisations on the basis of single pivotal trials and request the further study required to prevent the possibility of patients receiving a non-efficacious and potentially lethal drug.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Infective AgentsAntithrombinsChildClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicFibrinolytic AgentsHumansProtein CProteinsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecombinant ProteinsResearch DesignShock, SepticSurvival AnalysisSystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeTreatment OutcomeAnti-Infective AgentsAntithrombinsdrotrecogin alfa activatedFibrinolytic AgentsProtein CProteinsRecombinant ProteinsTifacogin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.