ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Electroacupuncture-inspired neuroimmune modulation in sepsis: evidence appraisal and ICU trial-design priorities.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroacupuncture (EA) has emerged as a biologically plausible adjunctive strategy for modulating neuroimmune dysregulation in sepsis. However, several recent reviews have already summarized anti-inflammatory mechanisms, ST36-centered animal evidence, organ-protective effects, and pooled clinical signals of acupuncture or EA in experimental and clinical sepsis. The unmet need is therefore not another catalog of positive pathways, but a critical translational framework that asks when, in whom, and how EA-inspired neuromodulation should be evaluated within the clinical complexity of septic intensive care. This review integrates mechanistic, preclinical, clinical, safety, and trial-design literature to appraise the evidence hierarchy, clarify sepsis immunophenotype-based patient-selection logic, and identify ICU-specific barriers to clinical translation. We emphasize somato-autonomic reflexes, inflammatory reflex signaling, vagal-adrenal and cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, macrophage and T-cell regulation, gut barrier immunity, immune suppression, and biomarker-guided stratification. Current clinical evidence suggests possible adjunctive signals, particularly in sepsis-associated gastrointestinal dysfunction and inflammatory biomarker modulation, but available trials are small, heterogeneous, frequently unblinded, and often use usual-care rather than sham comparators. Accordingly, reported mortality signals should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than established clinical efficacy. We propose that future research should prioritize phenotype-specific, sham-controlled, multicenter trials with standardized stimulation protocols, organ-specific endpoints, immune and barrier biomarkers, and rigorous ICU safety governance, with gastrointestinal dysfunction serving as the most actionable initial indication. Closed-loop or artificial intelligence-guided EA should be regarded only as a future, physician-supervised engineering perspective. EA remains a biologically plausible but clinically unproven adjunctive neuromodulatory strategy in sepsis; its value for hard outcomes such as mortality, durable organ protection, and long-term recovery requires confirmation in rigorously designed ICU 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.