ArticleBMJ open2026
Lower versus standard dose-intensity continuous renal replacement therapy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Lower versus standard dose-intensity continuous renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Lower limits of CRRT dose-intensity: what does the evidence support?Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Estimate selection determines the apparent mortality threshold at 13 mL/kg/h.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 2012 Kidney Diseases Improving Global Outcomes clinical practice guideline recommends prescribing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) doses in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) between 20 and 25 mL/kg/hour, with a need to consider further augmentation to 25-30 mL/kg/hour. Observational data have shown that lower-dose CRRT (<20 mL/kg/hour) may be tolerated and reduce adverse effects related to higher or guideline-directed standard dose-intensity CRRT. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence regarding tolerability, safety and clinical outcomes of lower CRRT dose-intensity compared with guideline-directed standard dose-intensity CRRT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library will be searched for studies from inception to present. We will evaluate the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and the Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions tool for cohort studies. Two reviewers will independently complete study selection, data extraction and bias assessment. Inclusion criteria will be randomised controlled trials and observational studies (cohort) including patients with AKI receiving CRRT. The exposure will be lower dose-intensity CRRT (<20 mL/kg/hour) compared with guideline-directed standard dose-intensity CRRT (≥20-40 mL/kg/hour). Outcomes will include intensive care unit and hospital mortality, dialysis duration and dependence and indicators of metabolic control. Pooled random-effect meta-analysis ORs with 95% CIs will be reported, if able. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Findings of this review will be disseminated through peer-related publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251135606.
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.