ArticleExperimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)2018
Pyruvate-enriched resuscitation for shock.
Article in Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pyruvate as a Potential Beneficial Anion in Resuscitation Fluids.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- NADNutrition and metabolic insights · 2021Review
- Protective Effects of Sodium Pyruvate during Systemic Inflammation Limited to the Correction of Metabolic Acidosis.Inflammation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary addresses the recent retraction of an article which reported favorable outcomes in septic patients treated with intravenous pyruvate. The retracted report was cited in the authors' recent minireview on the cellular mechanisms and clinical application of pyruvate to improve cardiac performance. Because the retracted article reports pyruvate-enhanced resuscitation of critically ill patients, the authors wish to inform the readership, especially critical care providers, that this particular clinical application of pyruvate is not now supported by robust evidence. After discussing the retraction's implications for the clinical application of pyruvate-enriched resuscitation for sepsis, this commentary summarizes the extensive preclinical evidence of the efficacy and mechanisms of pyruvate resuscitation in animal models of hemorrhagic and septic shock, which argues for renewed clinical investigation of pyruvate-enriched resuscitation. Impact statement This commentary addresses the recent retraction of a clinical report of significant benefits of intravenous pyruvate resuscitation in septic patients, including sharply lowered mortality and decreased circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines, which was cited in the authors' minireview in Experimental Biology and Medicine. The potential implications of the retraction, and the extensive preclinical evidence supporting the use of pyruvate-enriched resuscitation for shock states, are summarized and discussed.
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.