ReviewCureus2026
Albumin in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis and septic shock remain leading causes of mortality in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide, and the optimal resuscitation fluid continues to be debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of human albumin solution compared with control fluids across four patient-centred outcomes in adults with sepsis or septic shock. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) was conducted from inception to March 2026. Both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis using random-effects models demonstrated that albumin administration was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.28), renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirement (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70-2.15), or acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85-1.40). The sole outcome demonstrating consistent and statistically significant benefit was cumulative fluid balance, which was significantly lower in albumin-treated patients (mean difference (MD) -0.79 L, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.41). Subgroup analysis suggested that the renal effect of albumin is concentration-dependent, with hyperoncotic preparations associated with greater RRT risk in patients with pre-existing renal impairment. Albumin use is associated with a lower short-term cumulative fluid balance with no additional benefits on RRT and AKI. However, adequately powered randomised trials stratified by albumin concentration are needed to provide definitive guidance.
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.