ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2010
Outcome of accidental peritoneal dialysis catheter holes or tip exposure.
Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2010. 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.
- [Bacteriological characteristics of the peritoneal dialysis fluid infections].The Pan African medical journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pediatric peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are at risk for acute peritonitis. One risk factor is accidental exposure of the catheter to a non-sterile surface. We studied catheter exposures in 17 pediatric patients receiving PD who developed 16 holes and 12 other accidental exposures. The rate of exposures was 3.7 events/100 patient-months. After exposure, the mean counts (+ or - standard error) of white blood cells (WBC), red blood cells, and neutrophils were 39.8 + or - 19.3, 9.5 + or - 7.1, and 24.2 + or - 5.3/mm(3), respectively. There was a trend towards higher peritoneal fluid WBC in patients with holes than in those with exposures (60.1 + or - 34.8 vs. 15.4 + or - 5.1/mm(3), respectively; p = 0.2). The initial peritoneal fluid WBC count was significantly higher if there was a positive culture than a negative culture (165.0 + or - 132.6 vs. 20.3 + or - 6.4/mm(3), respectively; p = 0.01). The percentage of neutrophils was higher in patients with a positive culture than in those with a negative culture (54.7 + or - 14.1 vs. 19.1 + or - 4.9%, respectively; p = 0.01). Of the 28 patients, 27 received a single dose of intravenous antibiotics, as per the protocol at that time. Among those treated, 7% developed a positive culture (all staphylococcal species) while 93% had a negative culture. We conclude that following accidental exposure of the peritoneal dialysis catheter: (1) the prevalence of peritonitis is low; (2) measuring peritoneal fluid WBC provides treatment guidance; (3) if treatment is initiated, it should be applied intraperitoneally and include activity against Gram-positive organisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20157736What 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.