ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2010
The dark side of high-intensity renal replacement therapy of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The lower limit of intensity to control uremia during continuous renal replacement therapy.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Article
- Severe acute hypophosphatemia during renal replacement therapy adversely affects outcome of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.International urology and nephrology · 2013Article
- Continuous renal replacement therapy in children.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of intensity or dose of renal replacement therapy (RRT) on outcome of critically ill patients has been a matter of controversy. Most definitions of an adequate dose of acute RRT are based on urea removal, while ignoring other crucial aspects of RRT adequacy in acute kidney injury (AKI). Although some clinical trials have found an improvement in survival with higher doses of intermittent hemodialysis or continuous RRT, results have not been consistent across all studies. The largest trials suggest that there is no additional survival benefit with doses of 35-45 ml/kg/h (CRRT) or daily intermittent hemodialysis. On the other hand, high-intensity treatment may cause life-threatening complications and thereby counteract the benefits of higher small-solute clearance. One important area for future investigations is the need to characterize the potential harm of high-dose RRT for AKI in critically ill patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20383609What 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.