Observational studyNursing in critical care2026
Comparison of Two Artificial Liver Treatments for Acute Liver Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Nursing in critical care, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of Two Artificial Liver Treatments for Acute Liver Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study.Nursing in critical care · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiver failure can lead to severe disorders in the body's metabolism, detoxification, synthesis and other functions, with a high mortality rate of 60%-90%. The dual plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS) is a new artificial liver technology that has received much attention in recent years. However, it cannot provide coagulation factors, albumin or other substances during the treatment process and may even consume albumin during the adsorption process. The DPMAS typically needs to be used in combination with plasma exchange (PE). Few studies have compared PE alone and DPMAS + PE.
aimThis study aimed to explore the clinical efficacy and nursing methods of different artificial liver treatments for patients with acute drug-induced liver injury. STUDY
designThe clinical data of patients with liver failure admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital were retrospectively analysed to identify a PE group and a sequential PE group, comprising DPMAS with PE (DPMAS + PE). The changes in liver function and coagulation function index before and after treatment and the occurrence of adverse reactions were compared.
resultsIn total, n = 57 patients (PE n = 14, DPMAS + PE n = 43) participated in the study. There was no significant difference in alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or total bilirubin (TBIL) levels before treatment (p > 0.05). After treatment, ALT levels were higher in the PE group than in the DPMAS + PE group (317.72 ± 604.24 vs. 276.02 ± 763.04, respectively), whereas TBIL levels were lower in the former than in the latter (237.91 ± 124.34 vs. 297.95 ± 153.38). The international normalised ratio (INR) was higher in the DPMAS + PE group than in the PE group (1.84 ± 0.66 vs. 1.66 ± 0.72) and prothrombin activity (30.51 ± 7.91 vs. 34.62 ± 8.43) was lower, indicating that DPMAS + PE had a better effect on ALT and AST levels, but PE alone was more effective in improving TBIL and INR levels.
conclusionsThe two artificial liver treatments can improve markers of liver function in patients with liver failure and help with liver function recovery. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Both artificial liver therapies effectively support patients awaiting transplantation. Successful management, particularly of the combined DPMAS + PE modality, demands specialised nursing expertise. Nurses must vigilantly monitor circuit pressure and coagulation parameters and adjust anticoagulant doses proactively to ensure treatment safety and efficacy.
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.