SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Classical formula Taohe Chengqi decoction as an adjuvant therapy for sepsis - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Targeting Ferroptosis in Sepsis: Therapeutic Potential and Mechanisms of Natural Products and Traditional Chinese Medicine.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Taohe Chengqi (THCQ) decoction as an adjuvant therapy for sepsis, and to provide evidence for clinical practice. Methods: Eight databases were systematically searched from inception until June 2024. The study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving sepsis patients, where THCQ was used as an adjunctive therapy alongside conventional treatments. The primary outcome assessed was 28-day mortality rates, secondary outcomes included severity scores, inflammatory and coagulation markers, and adverse events. Two authors independently conducted the literature screening, data extraction, and evaluation of methodological quality. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and Stata 17 software. The Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 and GRADE were employed for quality assessment. Results: A total of sixteen RCTs involving 1,034 participants were included. Most of the studies were rated as having "some concerns" according to the ROB 2.0. Compared with conventional treatments, THCQ plus conventional treatments resulted in lower 28-day mortality rate (RR = 0.57, 95% CI [0.38, 0.86]; low-certainty), lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (APACHE-Ⅱ) (MD = -2.37, 95% CI [-3.12, -1.63]; low-certainty), lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA) (MD = -1.41, 95% CI [-2.12, -0.70]; low-certainty), lower white blood cell (WBC) (MD = -1.78 109/L, 95% CI [-2.97, -0.59]; low-certainty), lower procalcitonin (PCT) (MD = -1.20 ng/mL, 95% CI [-1.71, -0.69]; low-certainty), lower C-reactive protein (CRP) (MD = -9.82 mg/L, 95% CI [-13.98, -5.66]; low-certainty), and no serious adverse effects were observed (RR = 0.67, 95% CI [0.12, 3.71]; very low-certainty). Conclusion: Chinese medicine formula THCQ may offer potential benefits as an adjunctive treatment for sepsis patients, suggesting a reduction in the 28-day mortality rate, improvements in inflammatory markers, and enhancement of coagulation function, with no severe adverse reactions observed. Given the low quality of the included studies, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future large-scale, multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and provide robust evidence. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024562595, identifier CRD42024562595.
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.