ReviewKidney medicine2026
Dialyzer Reactions Revisited: A Fresh Perspective.
Review in Kidney 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
Dialyzer reactions can cause significant morbidity and even mortality. The current convention using time- and symptom-based classification has limited practical utility because of considerable overlap and diverse presentations. Several biomarkers have been described as diagnostic adjuncts, but clinical application remains sparse and inconsistent. There is also little guidance on subsequent management after diagnosis. In this paper, we highlighted the diagnostic complexities and current limitations through 2 clinical cases. We hence proposed a novel, pragmatic clinical and biomarker-guided algorithm using serum tryptase levels to address these. We adopted an acute increase from baseline levels of ≥ 20% + 2 ng/mL (20 + 2 rule) as the diagnostic threshold, demonstrated in one of the cases. Following this, ethylene oxide exposure should first be eradicated, as it remains one of the most common precipitants. If symptoms persist, decisions on dialyzer change should then be guided by clinical severity. In conclusion, there is a dire need for better diagnostic precision and individualized management of dialyzer reactions. Our proposed algorithm can potentially fill this gap but requires validation in larger prospective studies. Future research could further refine the optimal diagnostic threshold and explore risk stratification using a similar clinical-biomarker approach for more precise management.
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.