ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2024
Adjunctive immunotherapeutic agents in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a multidisciplinary consensus of 23.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phenotype-based appropriateness of IGM-enriched polyclonal immunoglobulin use in critical illness: report of an expert consensus.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle: Updated Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical applications of oXiris membranes: Targeting inflammation and renal dysfunction in ICU patients.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical practice in using corticosteroids and adjunctive sepsis therapies at the bedside among European ICUs: an ESICM-endorsed survey.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Proximity extension assay-based targeted proteomics for biomarker discovery in adult bacterial infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Advancements, Challenges, and Future Prospects of Nanotechnology in Sepsis Therapy.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
- Monitoring Immune Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients with Carbapenem-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last decades, several adjunctive treatments have been proposed to reduce mortality in septic shock patients. Unfortunately, mortality due to sepsis and septic shock remains elevated and NO trials evaluating adjunctive therapies were able to demonstrate any clear benefit. In light of the lack of evidence and conflicting results from previous studies, in this multidisciplinary consensus, the authors considered the rational, recent investigations and potential clinical benefits of targeted adjunctive therapies.
methodsA panel of multidisciplinary experts defined clinical phenotypes, treatments and outcomes of greater interest in the field of adjunctive therapies for sepsis and septic shock. After an extensive systematic literature review, the appropriateness of each treatment for each clinical phenotype was determined using the modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.
resultsThe consensus identified two distinct clinical phenotypes: patients with overwhelming shock and patients with immune paralysis. Six different adjunctive treatments were considered the most frequently used and promising: (i) corticosteroids, (ii) blood purification, (iii) immunoglobulins, (iv) granulocyte/monocyte colony-stimulating factor and (v) specific immune therapy (i.e. interferon-gamma, IL7 and AntiPD1). Agreement was achieved in 70% of the 25 clinical questions.
conclusionsAlthough clinical evidence is lacking, adjunctive therapies are often employed in the treatment of sepsis. To address this gap in knowledge, a panel of national experts has provided a structured consensus on the appropriate use of these treatments in clinical practice.
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.