Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31183570›Full record

ReviewAnnals of intensive care2019

Preclinical septic shock research: why we need an animal ICU.

Antoine Guillon, Sebastien Preau, Jérôme Aboab, Eric Azabou, Boris Jung, Stein Silva, Julien Textoris, Fabrice Uhel, Dominique Vodovar, Lara Zafrani and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of intensive care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Development and validation of a rabbit model ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. mBio · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. CD200RCellular & molecular immunology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors.

Antoine GuillonService de Médecine Intensive - Réanimation, CHRU de Tours, Tours, France.
Sebastien PreauService de Médecine Intensive, Hôpital Salengro, CHU Lille, Lille, France.
Jérôme AboabService de Réanimation, Hôpital Delafontaine, Saint-Denis, France.
Eric AzabouService de Réanimation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, 92380, Garches, France.
Boris JungService de Réanimation, CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Stein SilvaService de Réanimation, CHU Purpan, 31300, Toulouse, France.
Julien TextorisDépartement d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, hôpital Édouard-Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, CHU de Lyon, 69437, Lyon, France.
Fabrice UhelService de Réanimation Médicale et Maladies Infectieuses, CHU de Rennes, Hôpital Pontchaillou, Rennes, France.
Dominique VodovarCentre Antipoison et de Toxicovigilance de Paris - Fédération de Toxicologie, Hôpital Fernand-Widal, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Lara ZafraniService de Réanimation Médicale, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France.
Nicolas de ProstService de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 51, Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Créteil Cedex, France. nicolas.de-prost@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4833-4320
Peter RadermacherInstitut für Anästhesiologische Pathophysiologie und Verfahrensentwicklung, Universitätsklinikum, Ulm, Germany.
Translational Research Committee of the French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française)

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft CRC 1149Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft GRK 2003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal experiments are widely used in preclinical medical research with the goal of disease modeling and exploration of novel therapeutic approaches. In the context of sepsis and septic shock, the translation into clinical practice has been disappointing. Classical animal models of septic shock usually involve one-sex-one-age animal models, mostly in mice or rats, contrasting with the heterogeneous population of septic shock patients. Many other factors limit the reliability of preclinical models and may contribute to preclinical research failure in critical care, including the host specificity of several pathogens, the fact that laboratory animals are raised in pathogen-free facilities and that organ support techniques are either absent or minimal. Advanced animal models have been developed with the aim of improving the clinical translatability of experimental findings. So-called animal ICUs refer to the preclinical investigation of adult or even aged animals of either sex, using-in case of rats and mice-miniaturized equipment allowing for reproducing an ICU environment at a small animal scale and integrating chronic comorbidities to more closely reflect the clinical conditions studied. Strength and limitations of preclinical animal models designed to decipher the mechanisms involved in septic cardiomyopathy are discussed. This article reviews the current status and the challenges of setting up an animal ICU.

Indexed as

Animal modelsSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID31183570
PMCPMC6557957

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.