ArticleCritical care (London, England)2014
Citrate for continuous renal replacement therapy: safer, better and cheaper.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [Effects of regional citrate anticoagulation in continuous veno-venous hemofiltration of severe burn patients].Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns · 2021Article
- Renal Replacement Therapy Practices in India: A Nationwide Survey.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020Article
- Chemical and microbiological stability, anticoagulant efficacy and toxicity of 35 and 90 mM trisodium citrate solutions stored in plastic syringes.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2018Article
- Article
- Some metabolic issues should not be neglected when using citrate for continuous renal replacement therapy!Critical care (London, England) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a previous issue of Critical Care, Schilder and colleagues report the results of their multicenter trial (Citrate Anticoagulation Versus Systemic Heparinization; CASH) comparing regional anticoagulation with citrate to heparin anticoagulation. They found that citrate was safer, more efficacious and cheaper than heparin. In contrast to the largest previous trial, however, a survival benefit was not found, which was the primary endpoint of the CASH trial. Different explanations are possible, including selection bias and a lower severity of disease. Selection bias was high: only 6% of the renal replacement therapy patients were included (versus 56% in the previous trial) and exclusion was 56% for increased risk of bleeding, 2.5 times as frequent as in the previous trial. Thus, the trial with survival benefit apparently included more patients with risk of bleeding and also more severely ill patients and these are the groups that potentially benefit the most from citrate. Nevertheless, the CASH trial is the third large randomized trial showing superiority of citrate over heparin, supporting the recommendation of citrate as first choice anticoagulant.
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.