SynthesisRenal failure2026
Effects on mortality of different blood purification techniques in sepsis patients: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Renal failure, 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
Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, and extracorporeal blood purification has been widely implemented despite ongoing uncertainty regarding its survival benefit. We conducted an umbrella review of 42 systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating mortality across major extracorporeal blood purification modalities. Mortality estimates generally favored extracorporeal blood purification over conventional care, but effect sizes and consistency varied substantially by modality, and the overall certainty of evidence for mortality was low. At the review level, polymyxin B hemoperfusion showed a relatively consistent direction toward lower mortality, whereas renal replacement therapy-based strategies were typically closer to the null. However, most included reviews were of low or critically low methodological quality, with downgrading driven by risk of bias, inconsistency, and potential publication bias. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and should not be considered definitive evidence of survival benefit. They highlight persistent evidentiary fragility and underscore the need for rigorously designed, phenotype-informed trials to clarify modality-specific effects in sepsis.
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.