SynthesisHepatology communications2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of human albumin solution for treating the complications of liver cirrhosis.
Synthesis in Hepatology communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecompensated liver cirrhosis is characterized by serious complications and high mortality. Intravenous human albumin solution (HAS) has been used for decades to treat these complications, and this systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of HAS and compare it with alternatives.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) of HAS to treat liver cirrhosis. RCTs evaluating the use of HAS in cirrhotic adults were eligible. The clinical effect of protocol-guided HAS compared with alternatives on mortality was our principal outcome. Secondary outcomes included renal dysfunction, hepatic encephalopathy, gastrointestinal bleeding, portal hypertensive bleeding, recurrence of ascites, bacterial infections, paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction, multiorgan failure, and acute-on-chronic liver failure. Random effect odds ratios (ORs) and their confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.
resultsSixty-eight RCTs were included, with 4 evaluated as low risk of bias. Fifty-six RCTs reported mortality, with a statistically significant reduction in the overall odds of death compared with alternatives. The overall pooled random OR was 0.769 (95% CI 0.652-0.908), p=0.0019. Subgroup analyses grouping trials by size showed that only those with <100 participants demonstrated a significant reduction in overall odds of death (31.3%). HAS reduced the overall OR of renal dysfunction and recurrent ascites.
conclusionsHAS has shown a reduction in mortality and several complications. However, these benefits were primarily observed in small, low-quality trials, suggesting the need for large, well-designed RCTs before definitive recommendations can be made.
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.