ReviewEmergency medicine international2026
Efficacy and Safety of Albumin in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review.
Review in Emergency medicine international, 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Albumin in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review.Emergency medicine international · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Albumin, the most abundant blood protein, is widely used as a plasma expander in critically ill patients. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albumin compared to other alternatives in the prevention and treatment of complications in critically ill adults, considering different comparators and clinical situations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing albumin with crystalloids, other colloids, or standard care without albumin. Primary outcomes were total mortality, blood transfusion requirement, and serious adverse events. The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Meta-analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I Results: Thirty-five RCTs involving 13,975 critically ill adults were included. Mortality was 23.8% (1327/5586) with albumin and 24.2% (1361/5618). Compared with colloids, mortality was 21.9% (83/379) versus 24.4% (113/463). When compared with standard care without albumin, mortality was higher with albumin: 15.8% (60/380) versus 9.2% (39/424). SAEs occurred in 37.6% (298/793) of albumin-treated patients versus 33.5% (266/793) with crystalloids. Albumin required less transfused blood volume than colloids. Conclusions: Albumin showed no benefit over crystalloids, colloids, or standard care without albumin in reducing mortality. It resulted in less blood transfusions compared to colloids, but serious adverse events were higher than with crystalloids.
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.