SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparing the efficacy and safety of nafamostat mesylate versus citrate for anticoagulation in continuous renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anticoagulation is pivotal to the successful implementation of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Systematic comparative studies between nafamostat mesylate (NM) and citrate are scarce. There is currently a lack of evidence-based support for clinical practice. Objective: To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of NM versus citrate for anticoagulation in CRRT. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database (Wanfang), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and China Biological Medicine Database (CBM). Two researchers conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using standardized procedures and double-blinded methods. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager V.5.4 and STATA 15.1. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was quantified using the Chi-square and I-square tests, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test and funnel plots. Results: A total of 18 studies involving 2,247 CRRT patient episodes were included. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in filter lifespan or clotting events between NM and citrate (MD = -0.11, 95%CI: -1.87 to 1.65, Conclusion: NM suggests anticoagulant efficacy comparable to citrate in CRRT, with a lower risk of bleeding, particularly in high bleeding risk situations, among patients receiving low-dose NM. For CRRT patients with contraindications to citrate or high bleeding risk, NM may be an anticoagulant alternative that combines efficacy with safety. The overall certainty of the evidence from this study is low to very low; further multi-center, large-sample, high-quality RCTs are required to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251182609, identifier CRD420251182609.
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.