Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35268331›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Exchange Transfusion in Neonatal Sepsis: A Narrative Literature Review of Pros and Cons.

Shigeo Iijima

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Plasma transfusion in neonatal sepsis.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shigeo IijimaDepartment of Regional Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 4313192, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3391-3757
Hamamatsu University School of Medicine · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonatal sepsis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is widely considered that exchange transfusion (ET) as an adjunctive treatment for neonatal sepsis has the ability to reduce mortality. This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding the efficacy of ET for neonatal sepsis. In neonatal sepsis, immune responses such as proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines play an important role in pathogenesis and can lead to septic shock, multiple organ failure, and death. Between the 1970s and 1990s several authors reported that ET was effective in the treatment of neonatal sepsis with sclerema. ET removes bacterial toxins and inflammatory cytokines from the blood by replacing it with fresh and immunologically abundant blood, thereby leading to improvement in tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Moreover, ET with fresh whole blood increases neutrophil count and immunoglobulin levels as well as enhancing neutrophil function. However, there is a lack of clear evidence for the clinical efficacy of ET. In addition, adverse events associated with ET have been reported. Although most complications are transient, ET can lead to life-threatening complications. Therefore, ET can be considered a last resort treatment to rescue neonates with severe sepsis with sclerema and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Indexed as

adverse eventneonatal sepsisseptic shockwhole blood exchange transfusion

Identifiers

PMID35268331
PMCPMC8910835
OpenAlexW4214726782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.