ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Bibliometric analysis and initial animal efficacy evaluation of top ten scoring drugs to enhance oral rehydration therapy in early post-burn shock.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gastrointestinal axis in post-traumatic sepsis: from molecular mechanisms to translational perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Burns can cause severe physiological disturbances. Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) is an alternative to intravenous fluids. However, the World Health Organization-recommended oral rehydration solution (WHO-ORS) lacks specific components to address the critical physiological changes in patients with burns. This study aimed to identify and evaluate several drugs that enhance the ORT efficacy in burn shock management. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus (2000.01.01-2024.06.30) yielded 1,500 relevant studies, from which 270 were selected for bibliometric analysis. Drug candidates (≥3 mentions) were prioritized via the Bibliometric Evidence Score (BES) integrating publication frequency, journal impact factor (5-year average), impact score, and Q1 journal distribution. Subsequently, the translational potential of these candidates was assessed using an Integrated Translational Score incorporating weighted dimensions: Mechanistic Clinical Alignment Score (weight = 0.45), Emergency Deployment Feasibility (weight = 0.20), and BES (weight = 0.35). The top 10 drugs by the BES were selected for experimental validation, which were tested in a rat model with 50% total body surface area full-thickness burns (n = 286, 22/group), comparing sham controls, untreated controls, WHO-ORS, and drug-adjuvanted ORS groups. Primary outcomes included 48 h survival rate and blood lactate (Lac), hematocrit (HCT), malondialdehyde (MDA), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels. Results: Teprenone or vitamin C in combination with the WHO-ORS significantly improved survival outcomes following severe burns. They reduced blood lactate, HCT, MDA, and IL-6 levels. Glutamine and ethyl pyruvate showed beneficial effects but did not significantly improve survival. Hypertonic Saline and Dobutamine failed to demonstrate efficacy. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that adding teprenone or vitamin C to the WHO-recommended ORS can enhance the therapeutic efficacy of ORT in managing burn shock. These findings provide a scientific basis for further clinical trials and development of optimized ORS for patients with burns.
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.