Trial reportApplied health economics and health policy2015
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Efficiency Hemodiafiltration Versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis Based on the Canadian Arm of the CONTRAST Study.
Trial report in Applied health economics and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Health-economic evaluation of a novel personalized digital avatar-based anemia management software in hemodialysis patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- The Impact of Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis on Uremic Symptoms, Physical Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Kidney medicine · 2025Article
- Health-economic evaluation of an AI-powered decision support system for anemia management in in-center hemodialysis patients.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Expanded Hemodialysis and Comparison with Standard Hemodialysis and Online Hemodiafiltration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- High-Volume Hemodiafiltration Versus High-Flux Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review for the Clinician.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- An initial evaluation of expanded hemodialysis on hospitalizations, drug utilization, costs, and patient utility in Colombia.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2021Article
- Impact of Regular or Extended Hemodialysis and Hemodialfiltration on Plasma Oxalate Concentrations in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease.Kidney international reports · 2017Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016Article
- Controversy on the CONVINCE study findings: the PRO take.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
- High volume online hemodiafiltration: a global perspective and the Brazilian experience.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of high-efficiency on-line hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) compared with low-flux hemodialysis (LF-HD) for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) based on the Canadian (Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal) arm of a parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT), the CONvective TRAnsport STudy.
methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted for the period of the RCT (74 months). In addition, a Markov state transition model was constructed to simulate costs and health benefits over lifetime. The primary outcome was costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The analysis had the perspective of the Quebec public healthcare system.
resultsA total of 130 patients were randomly allocated to OL-HDF (n = 67) and LF-HD (n = 63). The cost-utility ratio of OL-HDF versus LF-HD was Can$53,270 per QALY gained over lifetime. This ratio was fairly robust in the sensitivity analysis. The cost-utility ratio was lower than that of LF-HD compared with no treatment (immediate death), which was Can$93,008 per QALY gained.
conclusionsHigh-efficiency OL-HDF can be considered a cost-effective treatment for ESRD in a Canadian setting. Further research is needed to assess cost effectiveness in other settings and healthcare systems.
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.