SynthesisPloS one2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of Chinese botanical drug injection in patients with sepsis: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis represents a significant global health challenge, contributing to considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Integrating Chinese botanical drug injections (CBDIs) with Western Medical Treatments (WMT) has been increasingly recognized for its enhanced therapeutic effects in sepsis management. This Bayesian network meta-analysis aims to identify the optimal combination regimen of CBDIs and WMT for sepsis therapy.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across eight electronic databases to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) relevant to our study criteria, spanning from their inception until January 1, 2024. The quality of included studies was rigorously assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. Data synthesis and analysis were performed utilizing R 4.1.2 and Stata 17.0 software. Additionally, publication bias was assessed through the construction of funnel plots.
resultsThis network meta-analysis assessed 72 RCTs involving 6,351 participants to evaluate the effectiveness of seven CBDIs in conjunction with WMT. It found Huangqi injection to be the most effective in improving APACHE II scores. Tanreqing injections significantly reduced procalcitonin (PCT) levels, with particularly superior. Shenmai injection was most effective in decreasing C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. In terms of reducing tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), Shenmai injection with WMT showed the best results. Xuebijing injection stood out in lowering white blood cell counts (WBC). Huangqi injection was noted for its best effectiveness in the 28-day mortality rates.
conclusionThe therapeutic efficacy of CBDIs in treating sepsis is underscored by our research findings, wherein certain botanical drugs exhibit heightened efficacy and safety attributes. The incorporation of these alternative modalities into contemporary sepsis management paradigms is advocated by the outcomes of our investigation. Nonetheless, rigorous, large-scale trials are imperative to substantiate and enhance these preliminary discoveries.
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.