Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25190187›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2014

Strategies to improve drug development for sepsis.

Mitchell P Fink, H Shaw Warren

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing 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

124 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Factors Promoting Lipopolysaccharide Uptake by Synthetic Lipid Droplets.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

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

2 authors.

Mitchell P FinkDepartments of Surgery and Anesthesiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, 72-160 CHS, Los Angeles California 90095, USA.
H Shaw WarrenInfectious Disease Units, Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital East, 149 13th Street, Fifth Floor, Charlestown, Massachusetts 02129, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis, a common and potentially fatal systemic illness, is triggered by microbial infection and often leads to impaired function of the lungs, kidneys or other vital organs. Since the early 1980s, a large number of therapeutic agents for the treatment of sepsis have been evaluated in randomized controlled clinical trials. With few exceptions, the results from these trials have been disappointing, and no specific therapeutic agent is currently approved for the treatment of sepsis. To improve upon this dismal record, investigators will need to identify more suitable therapeutic targets, improve their approaches for selecting candidate compounds for clinical development and adopt better designs for clinical trials.

Indexed as

Drug DesignAnimalsHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSepsis

Identifiers

PMID25190187

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.