ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Reading discordant bedside indices in sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy: an evidence-mapping framework for diagnosis and trial design.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy (SICM) affects 20%-30% of patients with septic shock and independently predicts mortality, yet it lacks a consensus definition or validated reference standard. Bedside diagnostic indices-left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain, E/e', troponin level, and cardiac index-are frequently discordant, and no principled framework exists for interpreting this discordance. In parallel, every major pharmacological intervention targeting SICM, including levosimendan, corticosteroids, and beta-blockers, has failed to demonstrate consistent mortality benefit across randomised trials. Herein, we propose that both impasses may share a single root cause: a construct validity failure in which bedside indices used for diagnosis and trial enrolment do not reliably identify the specific pathophysiological processes that they are assumed to represent. We present a structured evidence-mapping framework that organises six bedside diagnostic methods against seven pathophysiological trait dimensions of SICM, grading the evidence for each combination against explicit criteria and identifying structural blind spots. The framework explains why index discordance is a diagnostic signal rather than a measurement error, identifies two dimensions-metabolic dysfunction and cardiac-specific inflammatory signalling-that are structurally invisible to all current bedside diagnostics and whose invisibility offers a testable explanation for repeated trial failures, and translates these insights into a three-step bedside reasoning framework. When LVEF is depressed but longitudinal function is preserved, the framework directs assessment towards ventriculo-arterial uncoupling rather than inotrope escalation; when right ventricular dysfunction predominates, it directs assessment towards reverse resuscitation. The framework reframes index discordance from a source of diagnostic paralysis into a source of clinical precision and defines the enrolment biomarker agenda required to make future SICM trials mechanistically interpretable.
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.