Why ELAIN and AKIKI Should Not Be Compared: Resolving Discordant Studies.

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.

1. Treatment of Acute Kidney Injury: A Review of Current Approaches and Emerging Innovations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
   Review
2. Long-term outcomes after severe acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: the SALTO study.Annals of intensive care · 2023
   Article
3. Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration is Associated with Improved Survival in Burn Patients with Shock: A Subset Analysis of a Multicenter Observational Study.Blood purification · 2021
   Observational

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  In Reply to 'Why ELAIN and AKIKI Should Not Be Compared: Resolving Discordant Studies'.2017
• Comment on
  Shedding New Light on an Old Dilemma: Two Trials Examining the Timing of Renal Replacement Therapy Initiation in Acute Kidney Injury.2017

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as