Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21190579›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2010

Genome-wide transcription profiling of human sepsis: a systematic review.

Benjamin M Tang, Stephen J Huang, Anthony S McLean

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Multidrug-Resistant Sepsis: A Critical Healthcare Challenge.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Differential Gene Sets Profiling in Gram-Negative and Gram-Positive Sepsis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin M TangDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital and Nepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Penrith, NSW 2750, Australia. benjamintang@med.usyd.edu.au
Stephen J Huang
Anthony S McLean
University of Sydney · AUNepean Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSepsis is thought to be an abnormal inflammatory response to infection. However, most clinical trials of drugs that modulate the inflammatory response of sepsis have been unsuccessful. Emerging genomic evidence shows that the host response in sepsis does not conform to a simple hyper-inflammatory/hypo-inflammatory model. We, therefore, synthesized current genomic studies that examined the host response of circulating leukocytes to human sepsis.

methodsElectronic searches were performed in Medline and Embase (1987 to October 2010), supplemented by additional searches in multiple microarray data repositories. We included studies that (1) used microarray, (2) were performed in humans and (3) investigated the host response mediated by circulating leukocytes.

resultsWe identified 12 cohorts consisting of 784 individuals providing genome-wide expression data in early and late sepsis. Sepsis elicited an immediate activation of pathogen recognition receptors, accompanied by an increase in the activities of signal transduction cascades. These changes were consistent across most cohorts. However, changes in inflammation related genes were highly variable. Established inflammatory markers, such as tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-1 or interleukin-10, did not show any consistent pattern in their gene-expression across cohorts. The finding remains the same even after the cohorts were stratified by timing (early vs. late sepsis), patient groups (paediatric vs. adult patients) or settings (clinical sepsis vs. endotoxemia model). Neither a distinctive pro/anti-inflammatory phase nor a clear transition from a pro-inflammatory to anti-inflammatory phase could be observed during sepsis.

conclusionsSepsis related inflammatory changes are highly variable on a transcriptional level. We did not find strong genomic evidence that supports the classic two phase model of sepsis.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansSepsisTranscription, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID21190579
PMCPMC3219990
OpenAlexW2151403049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.