ArticleSystematic reviews2024
Efficacy and safety of Chinese tonic medicines for treating sepsis or septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction with high morbidity and mortality. Various studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of Chinese tonic medicines (CTMs) in treating sepsis or septic shock. However, trials directly comparing the efficacy and safety of different CTMs for sepsis or septic shock are still lacking. To identify the most optimal CTM for treating sepsis or septic shock, we plan to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of various CTMs used for sepsis or septic shock patients.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and safety of CTMs for patients with sepsis or septic shock will be systematically searched in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web Of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from inception to November 2023. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2.0. tool. The confidence of evidence will be evaluated through the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) web application. Primary outcomes include the delta Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (△SOFA) score at day 7 after interventions and 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes comprise delta serum lactate levels (△Lac) and delta mean arterial pressure (△MAP) at day 7 after interventions as well as total dose and duration of vasoactive drugs. Safety outcome includes adverse drug reactions or adverse drug events (ADRs/ADEs). The Bayesian network meta-analysis will be conducted using the "BUGSnet" package in R version 4.2.2. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values will be used to rank each treatment. Statistical inconsistency assessment, publication bias assessment, heterogeneity analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will provide new insights into the efficacy and safety of various CTMs used in sepsis or septic shock patients, providing help for future clinical practice and research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42023482572.
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.