ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2026
Prognostic significance of the blood urea nitrogen-to-serum albumin ratio in patients with septic shock.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The blood urea nitrogen-to-serum albumin ratio (BAR) has been linked to clinical outcomes in multiple critical illnesses; however, its prognostic value in patients with septic shock remains inconclusive. The present retrospective observational study involved 120 patients with septic shock, who were classified into a survivor group (n=97) and a non-survivor group (n=23) based on discharge outcomes. Within 24 h of ICU admission, important clinical and laboratory data were collected and compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified BAR [odds ratio (OR)=1.052; 95% confidence interval (CI):1.014-1.117; P=0.012] and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II; OR=1.096; 95% CI:1.014-1.185; P=0.030) as independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality in these patients. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of BAR for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.707. At the optimal cutoff value of 13.62, BAR had a sensitivity of 73.9% and a specificity of 63.9%. Further, the AUC of the multivariable model [including BAR, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), APACHE II, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO
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.