ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2013
A single institutional experience of conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters: a comparison to de novo placement.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Modified Switching Procedure from Temporary to Tunneled Central Venous Dialysis Catheters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Patients, healthcare providers, and general population preferences for hemodialysis vascular access: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Central Venous Catheters for Hemodialysis-the Myth and the Evidence.Kidney international reports · 2021Review
- Conversion from temporary to tunneled catheters by nephrologists: report of a single-center experience.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the outcomes of conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters with de novo placement of tunneled catheters and to determine the effect of time to conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled catheters on the incidence of complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective data analyses was performed on 1,154 patients who had de novo placement of tunneled hemodialysis catheters (control group) and 254 patients who underwent conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled catheters (study group). The outcomes including technical complications, infection, and catheter dysfunction were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe technical success rate was 100 % in both the groups with no complications recorded at the time of procedure or within 24 h of insertion. The most common complication encountered in both the groups was catheter dysfunction (15.6 % in controls and 18.1 % in study). Infection rates/100 catheter days for the control and study groups were 0.17 and 0.19, respectively. Infection-free survival was not statistically different between the two groups. The time spent with non-tunneled catheter prior to conversion did not significantly alter the rates of catheter dysfunction and infection in the study group.
conclusionThe efficacy and safety of conversion of non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters are similar to de novo placement with no difference in the rates of technical success, catheter dysfunction, or infection. However, the exchange of non-tunneled to tunneled catheter can help in preservation of veins for future vascular access, which is of vital importance in patients with chronic renal disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.