ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2014
[Adjuvant treatment of sepsis: what is known?].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent decades have been characterized by a large number of trials for registration of new drugs or indication approvals in the field of sepsis. Modern anti-inflammatory drugs or interventions are intended to correct the overwhelming dysregulation of inflammatory and coagulation pathways seen particularly in the early phase of sepsis. Immunostimulatory therapies are also being studied in order to correct immunoparalysis, which develops later in the course of sepsis as a compensatory mechanism. CURRENT STUDY
resultsRecombinant activated protein C, drotrecogin α, was conditionally approved and later withdrawn from the market by the producer because the initially observed beneficial effect could not be confirmed. The efficacy and safety of antithrombin, which, like drotrecogin α, also modulates inflammation and coagulation as an endogenous anticoagulant could not be confirmed when used for treating sepsis. As sepsis leads to disseminated intravascular coagulation which may be counteracted by antithrombin, new guidelines recommend antithrombin as a treatment option in this subgroup of sepsis patients. Intravenous administration of immunoglobulin, enteral administration of immunomodulating substances as immunonutrition, and the substitution of selenium, all showed some effectiveness in small heterogeneous studies, but their efficacy was not confirmed in large high-quality trials. Intensive glycemic control, which was temporarily recommended for acutely ill patients, increased the risk for adverse hypoglycemia in several clinical trials so that blood glucose target levels have been redefined and guidelines now no longer ask for normalization of blood glucose values with insulin. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK: None of the new drugs, however, has successfully become established as a new standard of care. In the future, studies of novel sepsis therapies may succeed better if suitable biomarkers allow for patient selection, reflecting key pathophysiologic mechanisms that are targeted by the innovative drugs.
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.