ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Innovation in sepsis trials: rethinking endpoints, statistics and patient stratification.
Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2026. 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.
- Timing of hemoadsorption in sepsis: redefining early through mediator-guided therapy.Journal of intensive care · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite extensive research, effective causal therapies for sepsis remain elusive, highlighting a persistent translational gap between biological understanding and clinical outcomes. Traditional randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have largely failed, likely due to profound patient heterogeneity, dynamic immune trajectories, and reliance on broad syndromic definitions coupled with mortality-centric endpoints. Such designs risk diluting treatment effects and obscuring biologically meaningful signals. Recent studies, however, suggest that precision medicine approaches may overcome these limitations. Trials such as ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2, IMMUNOSEP, INSPIRE, and TIGRIS have operationalised patient stratification based on physiological or immunological phenotypes and employed novel endpoints or statistical frameworks. ANDROMEDA-SHOCK-2 used capillary refill time guided haemodynamic resuscitation and a hierarchical win-ratio composite endpoint to personalise treatment and enhance sensitivity to benefit. IMMUNOSEP stratified patients by macrophage activation-like syndrome or immunoparalysis, demonstrating improved organ function with targeted interventions using the SOFA score as a primary endpoint. Similarly, INSPIRE focused on progression to organ dysfunction in high-risk pneumonia patients, while TIGRIS employed Bayesian analysis to enrich patients by endotoxin activity, increasing trial efficiency. These studies illustrate that aligning interventions with biological pathways, incorporating adaptive trial designs, and moving beyond short-term mortality can reveal clinically meaningful benefits obscured in conventional trials. Collectively, they signal a conceptual shift in sepsis research towards precision-guided therapies, adaptive protocols, and biologically informed endpoints, suggesting that the era of universal failure may be giving way to more targeted, effective approaches in critical care.
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.