ArticleMedicine2019
Efficacy and safety of acupuncture as a complementary therapy for sepsis: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of acupuncture as a complementary therapy for sepsis: a narrative review of the evidence and future trial directions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Role of acupuncture in critically ill patients: A systematic review.Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSepsis is a physiological, pathological, and biochemical syndrome caused by infection. Acupuncture may be useful for sepsis. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture as a complementary therapy for sepsis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang Database, Chinese Biomedicine (CBM) database, VIP database, and TCM Literature Analysis and Retrieval Database from inception to October 31, 2019 to identify any eligible study. We include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without any limitation of blinding or publication language, exclude cohort studies and case reports. Two reviewers will independently select studies, extract and manage data. The primary outcomes include the mortality at 28 days, acute physiology, and chronic health evaluation II scores. The secondary outcomes include the tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) counts, interleukin 6 (IL-6) counts, interleukin 10 (IL-10) counts, procalcitonin (PCT), lactic acid, the level of T cell subsets (CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD4+/CD8+), monocytes of human leukocyte antigen DR (HLA-DR), C-reactive protein (CRP), the numeration of leukocyte, intra-abdominal pressure, and adverse events or reactions. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Review Manager V.5.3 and R packages Metafor. We will use the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials to assess the risk of bias of included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not involve personal information. Ethical approval will not be required. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019141491.
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.