ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2026
[Extracorporeal immunomodulation in sepsis : Role, limits, and perspectives of adjuvant blood purification therapies].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection and remains associated with substantial mortality. Extracorporeal blood purification strategies are explored as adjunctive approaches to modulate host-response dysregulation.
objectivesPractice-oriented overview of current extracorporeal immunomodulatory strategies in sepsis and septic shock and a summary of available evidence and guideline position. MATERIALS AND
methodsNarrative review focusing on randomized trials, meta-analyses, guidelines, and ongoing study programs addressing nonselective hemoadsorption, selective endotoxin removal, and therapeutic plasma exchange.
resultsEvidence for nonselective hemoadsorption remains conflicting; recent higher-quality studies and guidelines do not show a proven clinical benefit and raise potential safety concerns. Selective endotoxin adsorption is biologically plausible and may be relevant in endotoxin-positive subgroups. Therapeutic plasma exchange is supported by mechanistic rationale, small randomized studies, and meta-analyses; confirmation in adequately powered multicenter trials is pending.
conclusionExtracorporeal immunomodulation should not be regarded as a uniform intervention. Progress will depend on precise patient selection, biomarker-guided allocation, appropriate dosing, and structured implementation. Until robust outcome data are available, these therapies should be used cautiously and preferably in experienced centers or study frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42373957What 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.