ReviewDer Internist2020
[Extracorporeal techniques for blood purification in sepsis: an update].
Review in Der Internist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytokine hemoadsorption with CytoSorb® in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care sciencePooled it
- Extracorporeal Cytokine Adsorption in Sepsis: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Hemoadsorption in Multiorgan Failure Due to Viscerocutaneous Loxoscelism.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- [Sepsis with hemolysis due to a liver abscess in a 60-year-old male patient].Der Internist · 2022Article
- Reconsidering adsorption in hemodialysis: is it just an epiphenomenon? A narrative review.Journal of nephrology · 2022Review
- [What is evidence-based in the treatment of sepsis?]Der Internist · 2020Review
- [Sepsis-there is still much to do].Der Internist · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite ongoing development, mortality in sepsis remains considerable. Various techniques for extracorporeal cytokine removal have been described, but evidence remains conflicting.
objectivesThe aim of this article is to summarize currently used extracorporeal blood purification techniques and their evidence.
methodsNon-systematic literature review
resultsThere are currently various blood purification techniques used with different levels of evidence regarding cytokine removal, vasopressor sparing effects and reduction of mortality, including high-volume dialysis with and without high cut-off filters, special adsorption filters (including CytoSorb®, CytoSorbents Europe, Berlin, Germany, and polymyxin‑B filters). There is development regarding therapeutic plasma exchange. For some blood purification techniques such as combined plasma filtration and adsorption, multicentric randomized studies found a negative effect on survival.
conclusionsDespite a theoretical rationale, the use of blood purification methods cannot be recommended for sepsis patients due to the lack of evidence of their efficacy. Heterogeneous inflammatory responses in sepsis render conduction of larger trials difficult. Thus, future studies should cautiously identify appropriate sepsis subtypes to be included. Available techniques should be chosen as individualized complementary treatments and not as competing systems.
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.