ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2026
[Personalized sepsis therapy and modern trial designs].
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 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
Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a pathological host response to infection. Despite decades of research, there is still very limited evidence for causal therapeutic approaches targeting this injurious host response. The discrepancy between steadily increasing biological understanding and limited clinical progress is often referred to as the "translational gap." On the one hand, randomized trial designs have focused on heterogeneous patient populations, and on the other, they have mostly used mortality as the primary endpoint. As a result, there is a risk that potentially effective interventions are diluted across biologically diverse patient groups, making relevant effects statistically undetectable. The large number of negative sepsis trials has not only led to fatigue among researchers, but also to concerns about financial risks within the research-driven pharmaceutical industry. More recent studies, however, suggest that precision medicine approaches could offer a way out of this situation. Recent investigations such as ANDROMEDA SHOCK 2, ImmunoSep, and Tigris use physiological or immunological phenotypes for patient selection and combine these with innovative endpoints and modern statistical methods. Together, they demonstrate that a stronger focus on the underlying pathophysiology can reveal clinically relevant benefits that remain hidden in conventional trial designs. These developments mark a fundamental shift in sepsis research: away from universal treatment concepts for everybody and toward individualized, biologically grounded, and adaptive therapeutic strategies.
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.