SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of Xuebijing injection as adjuvant therapy in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Chrysophanol alleviates sepsis-associated acute kidney injury by maintaining mitochondrial homeostasis and inhibiting M1 macrophage polarization].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026Article
- Correction: Xuebijing as a potential therapeutic option for septic shock: the need for rigorous evaluation of life-threatening adverse effects.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Xuebijing alleviates acute hydrogen sulfide-induced pyroptosis in rat spleen via suppression of the caspase-1/NLRP3 pathway.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Xuebijing injection is a standardized traditional Chinese medicine formulation comprising extracts from safflower, red peony, Chuanxiong, Angelica, and Salvia miltiorrhiza. It is clinically employed for the treatment of sepsis and associated complications. Methods: This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of Xuebijing injection in treating sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI). Six databases were searched up to 1 September 2024, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Xuebijing injection combined with conventional therapies versus the same conventional therapies alone. Data from individual RCTs were synthesized by meta-analysis, with effect measures expressed as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess the precision of the effect estimates, and the GRADE system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results: Eighteen RCTs involving 1,650 patients were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that, compared with conventional therapies alone, Xuebijing injection combined with conventional therapies significantly reduced 28-day mortality (RR 0.82%, 95% CI 0.69-0.98). It also significantly improved renal function (serum creatinine level: MD -17.55 μmol/L, 95% CI: -23.22 to -11.88; blood urea nitrogen level: MD -1.58 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.83 to -1.32; urine volume: MD 5.83 ml, 95% CI: 3.45-8.21), inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor-alpha level: MD -29.20 ng/ml, 95% CI: -39.15 to -19.25; interleukin-6 level: MD -25.80 ng/mL, 95% CI: -35.56 to -16.04; interleukin-10 level: MD -8.02 ng/mL, 95% CI: -13.98 to 2.07), and immune function (percentage of CD3 Conclusion: Xuebijing injection may help reduce mortality and improve renal function in patients with SA-AKI. However, the certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, underscoring the need for validation through large-scale, double-blind randomized controlled trials.
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.