Evidence Hub

Divergent effects of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in sepsis: a meta-analysis of experimental studies

Christian Kassasseya, Ligia Iulia Torsin, Caroline Musset, Marc Benhamou, Irshad H. Chaudry, J. Cavaillon, Nathalie Grall, Renato C. Monteiro et al.

Critical Care, 2024

12 citations

Abstract

Experimental studies in animals have yielded conflicting results on the role of Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) in sepsis and endotoxemia, with some reporting adaptive and others inappropriate effects. A meta-analysis of the available literature was performed to determine the factors explaining this discrepancy. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020167384) prior to data collection. PubMed and Embase were the databases queried. Risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE Risk of Bias Tool. All animal studies investigating sepsis-related mortality and modified TNF signaling were considered eligible. The exclusion criteria were: lack of mortality data, 7-day mortality rates below 10% in both wild type and TNF-altered pathway animals, and absence of an English abstract. To determine the role of TNF according to the experimental protocol, three approaches were used: first an approach based on the statistical significance of each experiment, then the pooled mortality was calculated, and finally the weighted risk ratio for mortality was assessed. A total of 175 studies were included in the analysis, comprising a total of 760 experiments and involving 19,899 animals. The main species used were mice (77%) and rats (21%). The most common method of TNF pathway modulation was TNF pathway inactivation that was primarily associated with an inappropriate secretion of TNF.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free