Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24536002›Full record

ReviewJournal of nephrology2014

Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) insertion: does it really make a difference?

Atul Bagul, Umasankar Mathuram Thiyagarajan, Nizam Mamode

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of nephrology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Superiority of laparoscopy in the peritoneal dialysis catheter reset surgery.Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Medical sciences = Hua zhong ke ji da xue xue bao. Yi xue Ying De wen ban = Huazhong keji daxue xuebao. Yixue Yingdewen ban · 2015
    Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Atul BagulSt Georges Hospital, London, UK, atulbagul@yahoo.com.
Umasankar Mathuram Thiyagarajan
Nizam Mamode
St George's Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J006742/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Permanent peritoneal dialysis (PD) access was first described and introduced in clinical practice more than 40 years ago. It is still undergoing modification and adaptation to various insertion techniques. PD Catheter insertion is commonly performed via one of the three techniques: (a) open surgical, (b) fluoroscopic-guided placement or blind percutaneous placements using a modified Seldinger technique and (c) minimally invasive. Catheter placement is thought to be the key to a successful PD programme and the economic advantages are lost if a patient switches to HD during the 1st year due to failure of PD. The objective of this document was to conduct an evidence-based assessment of a minimally invasive approach to PD catheter insertion, with particular regard to failure rates secondary to catheter dysfunction. Case series and randomised controlled trials suggest that laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters is safe, and useful for insertion of PD catheters in patients who have undergone previous abdominal surgery. An overall success rate of 90% with a less than 5% associated leak rate has been quoted, although a cost benefit analysis has not been performed. However, good grade I evidence is lacking and open surgery may be quicker, though results from on-going trial are awaited with interest.

Indexed as

Catheters, IndwellingLaparoscopyPeritoneal DialysisCatheterizationEquipment FailureEvidence-Based MedicineHumans

Identifiers

PMID24536002
OpenAlexW1999649285

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.