The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Albumin infusion in patients undergoing large-volume paracentesis: A meta-analysis of randomized trials
Open accessAbstract
Albumin infusion reduces the incidence of postparacentesis circulatory dysfunction among patients with cirrhosis and tense ascites, as compared with no treatment. Treatment alternatives to albumin, such as artificial colloids and vasoconstrictors, have been widely investigated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether morbidity and mortality differ between patients receiving albumin versus alternative treatments. The meta-analysis included randomized trials evaluating albumin infusion in patients with tense ascites. Primary endpoints were postparacentesis circulatory dysfunction, hyponatremia, and mortality. Eligible trials were sought by multiple methods, including computer searches of bibliographic and abstract databases and the Cochrane Library. Results were quantitatively combined under a fixed-effects model. Seventeen trials with 1,225 total patients were included. There was no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias. Compared with alternative treatments, albumin reduced the incidence of postparacentesis circulatory dysfunction (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–0.55). Significant reductions in that complication by albumin were also shown in subgroup analyses versus each of the other volume expanders tested (e.g., dextran, gelatin, hydroxyethyl starch, and hypertonic saline). The occurrence of hyponatremia was also decreased by albumin, compared with alternative treatments (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39–0.87). In addition, mortality was lower in patients receiving albumin than alternative treatments (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41–0.98). Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides evidence that albumin reduces morbidity and mortality among patients with tense ascites undergoing large-volume paracentesis, as compared with alternative treatments investigated thus far. (Hepatology 2012)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309 · cited 1×
“Subgroup analyses were performed on the effects of trial quality, as judged by the randomization method, allocation concealment, and blinding.(16) All analyses were performed using R version 2.”
Method
Cited by
Guidelines on the management of ascites in cirrhosis
Aithal, G. P., Palaniyappan, N., China, L., Härmälä, S., Macken, L., Ryan, J. M., Wilkes, E. A., Moore, K., Leithead, J. A., Hayes, P. C., et al. (2021) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321790 · Cited by 680
Bureau, C., Thabut, D., Oberti, F., Dharancy, S., Carbonell, N., Bouvier, A., Mathurin, P., Otal, P., Cabarrou, P., Péron, J. M., et al. (2017) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.016 · Cited by 452
Ginès, P., Solà, E., Angeli, P., Wong, F., Nadim, M. K., & Kamath, P. S. (2018) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-018-0022-7 · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Bernardi, M., Caraceni, P., Navickis, R. J., & Wilkes, M. M.
- Venue
- Hepatology
- Published
- 2012-04
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1172-1181
- ISSN
- 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075662049
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.