ArticleInfection & chemotherapy2025
Association between Albumin Administration and Pulmonary Complications in Patients with Septic Shock: An Analysis Using the MIMIC-IV Database.
Article in Infection & chemotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Albumin Continues to Engender Debate.Infection & chemotherapy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlbumin administration in patients with septic shock has shown potential benefits, but its association with the development of pulmonary complications remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of albumin administration on acute respiratory distress syndrome development in patients with septic shock. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed clinical data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database and included adult patients with septic shock. Propensity score matching was used to balance the covariates between the albumin and non-albumin groups. The primary outcome was the development of moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days. Survival analysis using the log-rank test compared acute respiratory distress syndrome development rates between the groups. Subgroup analysis was used to evaluate the effect of albumin administration on the primary outcome in various subgroups.
resultsAmong the 2,132 eligible patients, 1,572 (73.7%) did not receive albumin, whereas 560 (26.3%) received albumin. After propensity score matching, the primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (17.5% in the albumin group
conclusionNo significant difference in acute respiratory distress syndrome development was found between albumin and non-albumin groups of patients with septic shock. Albumin administration in patients with septic shock should be considered when clinically indicated, without undue concerns about acute respiratory distress syndrome development.
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.