ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Septic shock in the era of precision medicine: rethinking fluids, vasopressors, and immunomodulation.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Septic shock remains a high-mortality syndrome despite advances in early recognition, antimicrobial therapy, source control, and protocolized resuscitation. A major limitation of current practice is that septic shock is often managed as a single clinical entity, whereas patients meeting the same diagnostic criteria may differ substantially in hemodynamic phenotype, endothelial injury, microcirculatory function, immune state, coagulation activation, fluid tolerance, and vasopressor responsiveness. These differences help explain why biologically plausible therapies frequently fail when tested in unselected populations. This narrative review synthesizes evidence supporting a precision-oriented approach to septic shock across three therapeutic domains-fluid therapy, vasopressor support, and immunomodulation-supported by two cross-cutting precision layers: biological phenotyping and bedside precision tools. We distinguish bedside clinical phenotypes from biological endotypes and explain how this framework can refine resuscitation decisions. Fluid therapy is reframed as a titrated intervention requiring assessment of both fluid responsiveness and fluid tolerance. Vasopressor therapy is discussed beyond a uniform mean arterial pressure target, with emphasis on timing, agent selection, tissue perfusion, and individualized weaning. Immune, endothelial, and coagulation phenotyping are presented as biological bridges between bedside physiology and targeted therapy, while immunomodulation is considered a promising but still investigational frontier requiring patient stratification. Finally, we propose a pragmatic precision-resuscitation framework that integrates lactate kinetics, capillary refill time, point-of-care ultrasound, congestion assessment, and immune/endothelial biomarkers where available. Precision care should not delay time-critical sepsis interventions; rather, it should mature protocolized management into a dynamic process of early treatment, repeated reassessment, and phenotype-directed adjustment.
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.