SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Clinical efficacy of different blood purification modes on severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of different blood purification modes on Severe Acute Pancreatitis (SAP) based on a network meta-analysis, providing new insights for clinical treatment of SAP. Methods: Computerized searches were conducted in English databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, Wangfang Data, CBM) for clinical trials published through December 1, 2025, evaluating various blood purification modes for SAP. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2.0 (Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials, version 2). Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 18.0 software under the frequentist framework with a random-effects model. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) values were used to rank the efficacy of interventions. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, and loop inconsistency was examined for closed loops in the evidence network. Results: A total of 45 randomized controlled trials involving 3,707 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that regarding the primary outcome of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores, hemoperfusion + continuous renal replacement therapy ranked as the most effective intervention. For secondary outcomes:continuous renal replacement therapy plus plasma exchange and hemoperfusion combined with continuous renal replacement therapy were among the most effective interventions for reducing amylase (AMS), C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6). Hemoperfusion combined with continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated the greatest improvement in triglyceride (TG) levels in patients with hyperlipidemic SAP, and in renal function (Scr). However, in terms of mortality outcomes, blood purification did not show a trend toward benefit compared with conventional therapy. And for certain outcomes, loop inconsistency was detected and heterogeneity could not be effectively resolved, warranting cautious interpretation. Conclusion: Hemoperfusion combined with continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrateds more satisfactory therapeutic effects and significantly reduces amylase levels, improves inflammatory response, renal function, and disease severity in SAP patients, and effectively lowers TG levels in those with hyperlipidemic SAP, but hemoperfusion combined with continuous renal replacement therapy does not significantly decrease mortality. These findings provide evidence-based guidance for clinical decision-making, though further high-quality trials are required to confirm the optimal blood purification strategy. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261403366.
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.