From the Yahoo Board:
One limitation of our meta-analysis is the heterogeneity of the studies. The observations of individual studies differed substantially, which we attribute to various reasons. First, there are a fair number of studies with only few study participants yet large effect sizes. Eight studies included less than 15 patients per group. These studies achieved great effects with Cyto Sorb intervention. By contrast, there are larger randomized controlled trials and observational studies with propensity score matching with notably smaller effect sizes. Secondly, the use of Cyto Sorb differed in many ways. The number of adsorbers, duration of therapy, time from diagnosis to first use of the adsorber, and blood flow rate were very inconsistent. Thirdly, medical conditions were compared that differ completely in their pathophysiology.....
By no means were all the studies suitable for inclusion in the meta-study.
Most of them were completely inadequate in terms of their scientific quality, had cohorts that were too small, used data from the same patients several times and compared completely different disease courses," explains Professor Schmidt.
Nevertheless, the meta-study does not exclude that CytoSorb might not have a positive effect under certain circumstances, emphasizes Professor Schmidt.
"In certain patients in the very early phase of sepsis, the adsorber could possibly help," he says. "But these are case-by-case decisions." In order to clearly prove the effectiveness, randomized, controlled studies on suitable patients in comparable disease states are missing.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
