SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2011
Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for sepsis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
112 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 210 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory therapies for sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Protective effect of exercise on animals with sepsis: a systematic review of the existing literature.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of drug treatment for severe melioidosis and eradication treatment of melioidosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Sargramostim (rhu GM-CSF) as Cancer Therapy (Systematic Review) and An Immunomodulator. A Drug Before Its Time?Frontiers in immunologyPooled it
- Trial
- [Pharmacological immunomodulation in sepsis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Review
- Persistent Inflammation, Immunosuppression, and Catabolism Syndrome and Serious Infections in Burn-Injured Adults: A Retrospective Single-Center Study from 1997 to 2023.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Article
- Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in sepsis: drivers of persistent immunosuppression and targets for precision immunotherapy.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Article
- Transcending metabolic acidosis: lactate as an epigenetic signal reprogramming diabetes-sepsis immunity.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Mannan is a context-dependent shield that modifies virulence inVirulence · 2025Article
- Sepsis and heatstroke: overlapping and distinct mechanisms of systemic inflammation.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2025Review
- Immunomodulatory Nanozymes Eradicate Intracellular Infections and Rescue Immunoparalysis for Treating Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Sepsis.Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2025Article
- Immune Dysregulation in Sepsis. A Narrative Review for the Clinicians.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Persistent inflammation, immunosuppression, and catabolism syndrome and sepsis in pediatric burns.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2025Article
- Immunomodulation in Pediatric Sepsis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Neutrophil heterogeneity and plasticity: unveiling the multifaceted roles in health and disease.MedComm · 2025Review
- Cytokines in sepsis: a critical review of the literature on systemic inflammation and multiple organ dysfunction.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Challenges of monocyte HLA-DR targeted immunomodulation in sepsis-a prospective observational cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Observational
- Immune signatures of sepsis from mild infection to critical illness - a prospective observational study.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Observational
52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo investigate the effects of G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy in non-neutropenic patients with sepsis.
methodsA systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted using specific search terms. A manual review of references was also performed. Eligible studies were randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) therapy with placebo for the treatment of sepsis in adults. Main outcome measures were all-cause mortality at 14 days and 28 days after initiation of G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy, in-hospital mortality, reversal rate from infection, and adverse events.
resultsTwelve RCTs with 2,380 patients were identified. In regard to 14-day mortality, a total of 9 death events occurred among 71 patients (12.7%) in the treatment group compared with 13 events among 67 patients (19.4%) in the placebo groups. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality when G-CSF or GM-CSF were compared with placebo (relative risks (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79 to 1.11, P = 0.44; P for heterogeneity = 0.31, I2 = 15%). Compared with placebo, G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.36, P = 0.86; P for heterogeneity = 0.80, I2 = 0%). However, G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy significantly increased the reversal rate from infection (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.62, P = 0.002; P for heterogeneity = 0.47, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed in adverse events between groups (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.23, P = 0.62; P for heterogeneity = 0.03, I2 = 58%). Sensitivity analysis by excluding one trial did not significantly change the results of adverse events (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.32, P = 0.44; P for heterogeneity = 0.17, I2 = 36%).
conclusionsThere is no current evidence supporting the routine use of G-CSF or GM-CSF in patients with sepsis. Large prospective multicenter clinical trials investigating monocytic HLA-DR (mHLA-DR)-guided G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy in patients with sepsis-associated immunosuppression are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.