ReviewJournal of inflammation research2026
Clinical Evidence and Mechanistic Plausibility of Chinese Patent Medicines for Sepsis: An Evidence Map.
Review in Journal of inflammation research, 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
Sepsis is a life-threatening syndrome with limited specific therapeutic options. Chinese patent medicines (CPMs) are widely used as adjunctive therapies in China, although the available clinical evidence, predominantly from injectable formulations, remains fragmented. This evidence map integrated review-level clinical evidence with in vivo findings to assess evidence certainty and mechanistic plausibility. Eighteen meta-analyses and 337 eligible animal studies were identified; 237 animal studies corresponding to interventions with at least one moderate-certainty clinical outcome entered the focused mechanistic analysis. No review-outcome estimate was rated as high certainty, and 27 of 152 review-outcome estimates (17.8%) were rated as moderate certainty. Moderate-certainty evidence was concentrated mainly in Xuebijing and Shenfu, with fewer moderate-certainty signals for Shengmai, Shenmai, Yiqifumai, Shuxuetong, and Xiyanping. In animal models, Xuebijing and Shenfu were associated with inflammatory and immune regulation, endothelial or barrier protection, mitochondrial function, and programmed cell death, while Shengmai, Shenmai, and Yiqifumai showed more limited pathway-level associations involving oxidative stress, cardiovascular protection, and ferroptosis. Overall, the animal evidence suggested overlapping biological pathways, but risk of bias was generally unclear or high and did not establish causal mechanisms in humans. This evidence map provides a structured framework linking clinical evidence certainty with mechanistic plausibility and highlights important evidence gaps. Given the limited certainty of the clinical evidence, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in rigorous clinical trials, systematic safety evaluations, and methodologically robust translational studies.
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.