SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2026
Lower versus standard dose-intensity continuous renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Depletion of the Antioxidant Ergothioneine by Critical Illness and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.Kidney and dialysis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate clinical outcomes of lower continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) dose-intensity compared with guideline-directed standard dose-intensity CRRT.
methodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was performed from inception to September 19, 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of adults with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving CRRT. The primary exposure was delivered lower dose-intensity CRRT (< 20 mL/kg/hr) compared with guideline-directed standard dose-intensity CRRT (≥ 20–40 mL/kg/hr). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. (CRD420251135606)
resultsFourteen studies (3 RCTs, 11 cohorts) comprising 5,318 patients were included. RCTs had moderate risk of bias, whereas most cohort studies had serious risk. Lower CRRT dose-intensity was associated with decreased ICU mortality (6 studies) compared with standard dose-intensity (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.60–0.98; p = 0.04; I2 = 26.9%; very low certainty). However, sensitivity analysis based on a Hartung-Knapp Sidik-Jonkmann model showed no difference in ICU mortality between groups (OR 0.77 [95% CI; p = 0.10, 0.55–1.08]). There were no significant differences between groups for dialysis duration, dialysis dependence at discharge, hospital LOS, or mechanical ventilation duration. In a subgroup analysis, a very low dose-intensity group (< 13 mL/kg/hr) was associated with an increased risk in 90-day mortality (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.31–2.24; p < 0.001, I2 = 0%; very low certainty).
conclusionAmong critically ill adults with AKI receiving CRRT, lower dose-intensity therapy was not associated with increased ICU mortality. Other key clinical endpoints were comparable, based on very low certainty of evidence. These findings support further research to investigate the impact of lower CRRT dose-intensity.
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.