Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37898763›Full record

SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2023

Efficacy of IVIG therapy for patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bo Pan, Pan Sun, Renjun Pei, Fangzhao Lin, Haijun Cao

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Refractory septic shock: our updated pragmatic approach.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bo PanInstitute of Blood Transfusion, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Chengdu, 610052, China.
Pan SunInstitute of Blood Transfusion, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Chengdu, 610052, China.
Renjun PeiInstitute of Blood Transfusion, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Chengdu, 610052, China.
Fangzhao LinInstitute of Blood Transfusion, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Chengdu, 610052, China. lfangzhao@126.com.
Haijun CaoInstitute of Blood Transfusion, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Chengdu, 610052, China. chjr007@163.com.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis is an overwhelming reaction to infection that comes with high morbidity and mortality. It requires urgent interventions in order to improve outcomes. Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) are considered as potential therapy in sepsis patients. Results of trials on IVIG as adjunctive therapy for sepsis have been conflicting due to the variability in population characteristics, country geography and drug dosage form in different studies.

methodsA systematic article search was performed for eligible studies published up to January, 31, 2023, through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database. The included articles were screened by using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different IVIG types, ages and economic regions. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Quality of studies and risk of bias were evaluated.

resultsIn total, 31 randomized controlled trials were included with a sample size of 6,276 participants. IVIG could reduce the mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95, p = 0.005), the hospital stay (MD - 4.46, 95% CI: - 6.35 to - 2.57, p = 0.00001), and the APACHE II scores (MD - 1.65, 95% CI: - 2.89 to - 0.63, p = 0.001). Additionally, the results showed that IgM-enriched IVIG was effective in treating sepsis (RR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40 - 0.76; p = 0.0003), while standard IVIG failed to be effective (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81-1.02, p = 0.10). And the effect of IVIG in reducing neonatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.81-1.05, p = 0.24), but it played a large role in reducing sepsis mortality in adults (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.86, p = 0.0006). Besides, from the subgroup of different economic regions, it indicated that IVIG was effective for sepsis in high-income (RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99, p = 0.03) and middle-income countries (RR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28-0.84, p = 0.01), while no benefit was demonstrated in low-income countries (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.27-1.14, p = 0.11).

conclusionsThere is sufficient evidence to support that IVIG reduces sepsis mortality. IgM-enriched IVIG is effective in both adult and neonatal sepsis, while standard IVIG is only effective in adult sepsis. IVIG for sepsis has shown efficacy in high- and middle-income countries, but is still debatable in low-income countries. More RCTs are needed in the future to confirm the true clinical potential of IVIG for sepsis in low-income countries.

Indexed as

Immunoglobulins, IntravenousSepsisHumansImmunoglobulin MLength of StayImmunoglobulin MImmunoglobulins, IntravenousAge-differenceEconomic regionsIVIGMeta-analysisSepsis

Identifiers

PMID37898763
PMCPMC10612304
OpenAlexW4388001675

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.