ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
The role of hemoadsorption in septic shock: toward a personalized approach.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Timing of hemoadsorption in sepsis: redefining early through mediator-guided therapy.Journal of intensive care · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A dysregulated host response to infection is central to the pathophysiology of sepsis and may culminate in life-threatening organ dysfunction. Given that this process is largely characterized by concurrent pro- and anti-inflammatory activation, immunomodulatory strategies have long been explored in sepsis research. Among these, extracorporeal removal of circulating cytokines, inflammatory mediators and other soluble factors through non-specific hemoadsorption with macroporous styrene-divinylbenzene sorbents has been proposed as a potential therapeutic approach. Its adoption into clinical practice has largely been based on pathophysiological considerations rather than on evidence from large, well-designed randomized clinical trials. Over the past 15 years, most of the available evidence has been predominantly derived from small, single-center cohorts, reports from registries and heterogeneous prospective studies with substantial variability in patients' selection, timing, and treatment intensity. In addition, the precise mechanisms of action of hemoadsorption remain incompletely understood. Although several meta-analyses have attempted to synthesize the existing data, the overall quality and heterogeneity of the included studies limit the strength and reliability of their conclusions. As a result, current guideline recommendations are largely based on expert opinions rather than high-certainty evidence. This position statement aimed to provide a concise overview of the biological rationale, current evidence, and contemporary clinical practice related to hemoadsorption in critically ill patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.