ArticleHeliyon2022
The comparison of the mortality rates of plasmapheresis/hemoperfusion therapy with current treatment among Covid-19 patients.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion in COVID-19 survivors: A six-month follow-up analysis after hospital discharge.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of hemoperfusion therapy for COVID-19 patients: a historical cohort study.BMC research notes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no definitive treatment for COVID-19. Hemoperfusion and plasmapheresis have only been studied in a few cases of COVID-19. In this study, plasmapheresis-hemoperfusion and current treatment for COVID-19 patients were compared for mortality. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 103 patients with COVID-19 underwent hemoperfusion, plasmapheresis, and conventional medical treatment in educational hospitals in Ahvaz, Iran. A census method was used to include the patients in the study. The data from the hospital file were used to complete a checklist containing demographic information, clinical findings, and paraclinical findings for all patients. Results: There was not a statistically significant difference (P-value = 0.051) between the plasmapheresis group (78.8%), the hemoperfusion group (71.9%), and the current treatment group (52.6%) in mortality rates. Hemoperfusion had a median survival time of 18.9 days, plasmapheresis had a median survival time of 16.9 days, and current treatment had a median survival time of 13.5 days. In terms of patient survival time, there was no significant difference (P-value = 0.181). Multiple regression results showed that death rates in the hemoperfusion (P = 0.393) and plasmapheresis (P = 0.073) groups were not statistically different from those in the current treatment group. Conclusion: As a result of this study, there were no differences between the treatment groups in regard to death rates or patient survival times.
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.