Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25672828›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2014

The lower limit of intensity to control uremia during continuous renal replacement therapy.

Hideto Yasuda, Shigehiko Uchino, Makiko Uji, Tetsu Ohnuma, Yoshitomo Namba, Shinshu Katayama, Hiroo Kawarazaki, Noriyoshi Toki, Kenta Takeda, Junichi Izawa and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Balancing carbon reduction and treatment adequacy in sustainable continuous renal replacement therapy.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Ensuring Sustainability of Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Face of Extraordinary Demand: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Hideto Yasuda
Shigehiko Uchino
Makiko Uji
Tetsu Ohnuma
Yoshitomo Namba
Shinshu Katayama
Hiroo Kawarazaki
Noriyoshi Toki
Kenta Takeda
Junichi Izawa
Natsuko Tokuhira
Isao Nagata
Japanese Society for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care Clinical Trial Group
Jikei University School of Medicine · JPAsahi Hospital · JPHyogo Medical University · JPJichi Medical University · JPMusashino Red Cross Hospital · JPOsaka University Hospital · JPShowa University Fujigaoka Hospital · JPSt. Marianna University School of Medicine · JPTokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center · JPUniversity Hospital Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JPYokohama Municipal Minato Red Cross Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe recommended lower limit of intensity during continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is 20 or 25 mL/kg/h. However, limited information is available to support this threshold. We aimed to evaluate the impact of different intensities of CRRT on the clearance of creatinine and urea in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI).

methodsThis is a multicenter retrospective study conducted in 14 Japanese ICUs in 12 centers. All patients older than 18 years and treated with CRRT due to AKI were eligible. We evaluated the effect of CRRT intensity by two different definitions: daily intensity (the mean intensity over each 24-h period) and average intensity (the mean of daily intensity during the period while CRRT was performed). To study the effect of different CRRT intensity on clearance of urea and creatinine, all patients/daily observations were arbitrarily allocated to one of 4 groups based on the average intensity and daily intensity: <10, 10-15, 15-20, and >20 mL/kg/h.

resultsTotal 316 patients were included and divided into the four groups according to average CRRT intensity. The groups comprised 64 (20.3%), 138 (43.7%), 68 (21.5%), and 46 patients (14.6%), respectively. Decreases in creatinine and urea increased as the average intensity increased over the first 7 days of CRRT. The relative changes of serum creatinine and urea levels remained close to 1 over the 7 days in the "<10" group. Total 1,101 daily observations were included and divided into the four groups according to daily CRRT intensity. The groups comprised 254 (23.1%), 470 (42.7%), 239 (21.7%), and 138 observations (12.5%), respectively. Creatinine and urea increased (negative daily change) only in the "<10" group and decreased with the increasing daily intensity in the other groups.

conclusionsThe lower limit of delivered intensity to control uremia during CRRT was approximately between 10 and 15 mL/kg/h in our cohort. A prescribed intensity of approximately 15 mL/kg/h might be adequate to control uremia for patients with severe AKI in the ICU. However, considering the limitations due to the retrospective nature of this study, prospective studies are required to confirm our findings.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkersCohort StudiesCreatinineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRenal Replacement TherapyRetrospective StudiesUreaUremiaBiomarkersCreatinineUrea

Identifiers

PMID25672828
PMCPMC4194053
OpenAlexW2123492878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.