ReviewCritical care medicine2018
Translational Sepsis Research: Spanning the Divide.
Review in Critical care medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Of mice and men: Laboratory murine models for recapitulating the immunosuppression of human sepsis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Stressed erythrophagocytosis induces immunosuppression during sepsis through heme-mediated STAT1 dysregulation.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Article
- Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2020Article
- Clinically relevant model of pneumococcal pneumonia, ARDS, and nonpulmonary organ dysfunction in mice.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2019Article
- Linagliptin Attenuates the Cardiac Dysfunction Associated With Experimental Sepsis in Mice With Pre-existing Type 2 Diabetes by Inhibiting NF-κB.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Article
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
Abstract
objectiveOur knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of sepsis has attained exponential growth. Yet, the pillars of its care remain antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, and physiologic support of failing organ systems. The inability to bring biologic breakthroughs to the bedside is not for lack of effort. Over 60 clinical trials of novel therapies, each heavily supported by the momentum of biologic data suggesting clinical utility, have been conducted and have failed to identify benefit. This mass of "negative" clinical data abut an equally towering mound of knowledge of sepsis biology, which collectively have led investigators to ask, "what happened?" DATA SOURCES: Review of published scientific literature via MEDLINE searches using key terms related to the article topics. STUDY SELECTION: Original articles, review articles, and systematic reviews were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were selected for inclusion based upon author consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Here, we present a synthetic review of some of the challenges in translating experimental animal models of sepsis to the bedside. We commence with the concept that the heterogeneity in the kinetics of the sepsis response serves as an important, often underappreciated but surmountable, source of translational impedance. Upon this groundwork, we discuss distinctions between animal experimentation and clinical trial design in the elements for hypothesis testing: cohort selection, power and sample size, randomization and blinding, and timing of intervention. From this concept, we develop a contextual framework for advancing the paradigm of animal-based investigations to facilitate science that transitions from molecule to medicine.
conclusionsA persistent divide exists between the laboratory and clinical research arenas, which may be addressable via systematic targeting of identified translational gaps.
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.