ReviewArtificial organs2021
Methods for dose quantification in continuous renal replacement therapy: Toward a more precise approach.
Review in Artificial organs, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Intelligent Operating Room to Smart ICU: Digital Continuity, AI-Supported Decision-Making and CRRT as a Model of Pharmacokinetic Personalization in Critical Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Methods for dose quantification in continuous renal replacement therapy: Toward a more precise approach.Artificial organs · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periodic dose assessment is quintessential for dynamic dose adjustment and quality control of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). The flows-based methods to estimate dose are easy and reproducible methods to quantify (estimate) CRRT dose at the bedside. In particular, quantification of effluent flow and, mainly, the current dose (adjusted for dialysate, replacement, blood flows, and net ultrafiltration) is routinely used in clinical practice. Unfortunately, these methods are critically influenced by several external unpredictable factors; the estimated dose often overestimates the real biological delivered dose quantified through the measurement of urea clearance (the current effective delivered dose). Although the current effective delivered dose is undoubtedly more precise than the flows-based dose estimation in quantifying CRRT efficacy, some limitations are reported for the urea-based measurement of dose. This article aims to describe the standard of practice for dose quantification in critically ill patients with AKI undergoing CRRT in the intensive care unit. Pitfalls of current methods will be underlined, along with solutions potentially applicable to obtain more precise results in terms of (a) adequate marker solutes that should be used in accordance with the clinical scenario, (b) correct sampling procedures depending on the chosen indicator of transmembrane removal, (c) formulas for calculations, and (d) quality controls and benchmark indicators.
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.