ReviewBioMed research international2014
Heat shock protein 72 expressing stress in sepsis: unbridgeable gap between animal and human studies--a hypothetical "comparative" study.
Review in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Necroptotic and Apoptotic Pathways in Sepsis: A Comparative Analysis of Pediatric and Adult ICU Patients.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Ex Vivo Evaluation of Glutamine Treatment in Sepsis and Trauma in a Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Model.Nutrients · 2023Article
- MiR-940 Serves as a Diagnostic Biomarker in Patients with Sepsis and Regulates Sepsis-Induced Inflammation and Myocardial Dysfunction.Journal of inflammation research · 2021Article
- A robust strategy for proteomic identification of biomarkers of invasive phenotype complexed with extracellular heat shock proteins.Cell stress & chaperones · 2019Article
- HSP-Target of Therapeutic Agents in Sepsis Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Association between circulating levels of heat-shock protein 27 and aggressive periodontitis.Cell stress & chaperones · 2018Article
- Polymyxin B hemoperfusion in septic shock: nothing overmuch (Meden Agan)!Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- Observational
- Early response roles for prolactin cortisol and circulating and cellular levels of heat shock proteins 72 and 90α in severe sepsis and SIRS.BioMed research international · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heat shock protein 72 (Hsp72) exhibits a protective role during times of increased risk of pathogenic challenge and/or tissue damage. The aim of the study was to ascertain Hsp72 protective effect differences between animal and human studies in sepsis using a hypothetical "comparative study" model. Forty-one in vivo (56.1%), in vitro (17.1%), or combined (26.8%) animal and 14 in vivo (2) or in vitro (12) human Hsp72 studies (P < 0.0001) were enrolled in the analysis. Of the 14 human studies, 50% showed a protective Hsp72 effect compared to 95.8% protection shown in septic animal studies (P < 0.0001). Only human studies reported Hsp72-associated mortality (21.4%) or infection (7.1%) or reported results (14.3%) to be nonprotective (P < 0.001). In animal models, any Hsp72 induction method tried increased intracellular Hsp72 (100%), compared to 57.1% of human studies (P < 0.02), reduced proinflammatory cytokines (28/29), and enhanced survival (18/18). Animal studies show a clear Hsp72 protective effect in sepsis. Human studies are inconclusive, showing either protection or a possible relation to mortality and infections. This might be due to the fact that using evermore purified target cell populations in animal models, a lot of clinical information regarding the net response that occurs in sepsis is missing.
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.