ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using a meta-analytic approach. Methods: Randomized controlled trials on CVVH for ARDS were retrieved from Chinese databases (Wanfang, CNKI) as well as PubMed and Web of Science. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software on the extracted data. Results: This meta-analysis included a total of 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,739 patients with ARDS, comprising 897 cases in the CVVH group and 842 cases in the conventional treatment group. The results demonstrated that the CVVH group exhibited superior outcomes compared to the conventional treatment group in terms of oxygenation index (MD = 52.80, 95% CI [39.75, 65.84], Conclusion: In conclusion, CVVH as an adjunctive therapy for ARDS improves oxygenation, reduces mortality, shortens ICU and ventilator days, lowers APACHE II score and heart rate, decreases VAP incidence, and exerts anti-inflammatory and fluid-removing effects. Although substantial heterogeneity and potential publication bias exist (e.g., for oxygenation index and mechanical ventilation duration), and all included studies are from China, CVVH demonstrates promising clinical value. Large-scale, multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and optimize treatment protocols.
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.