Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22752499›Full record

ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2012

Hemodiafiltration and survival of end-stage renal disease patients: the long journey goes on.

Holger Schmid, Helmut Schiffl

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urology and nephrology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Holger SchmidDepartment of Internal Medicine IV-Campus Innenstadt, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Helmut Schiffl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Survival of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients remains unacceptably poor. The excessive mortality of hemodialysis (HD) patients may result, at least in part, from the insufficient removal of medium or high molecular weight uremic toxins and from the systemic inflammatory response induced by the bioincompatibility of HD systems. Hemodiafiltration (HDF) combines diffusion and convection in a single modality, and it appears to be a promising method to improve ESRD patient outcomes. Emerging evidence suggests that this technique may be superior to classic diffusive HD in terms of patient morbidity. Despite the more widespread use of online HDF, evidence for survival benefits of HDF over other treatment modalities is scarce. Results of observational studies suggest lower mortality of HDF patients as compared to HD patients. Recent prospective randomized trials, however, failed to demonstrate any improvement in survival. Subanalyses of these trials, however, showed a significant survival benefit of HDF patients receiving high substitution volumes (17 L per session and more) compared to HD patients and to HDF patients receiving lower volumes. The explanation for this volume-dependent effect remains elusive. There is an urgent need for further randomized controlled trials to confirm previous findings and to identify those ESRD patients that are likely to benefit mostly from HDF.

Indexed as

HemodiafiltrationHumansKidney Failure, ChronicRenal DialysisSurvival Rate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.