ArticleBMC nephrology2015
Association between acetylsalicylic acid and the risk of dialysis-related infections or septicemia among incident hemodialysis patients: a nested case-control study.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2015. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Acetylsalicylic Acid Use on Risk and Outcome of Community-AcquiredOpen forum infectious diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVascular access-related infections and septicemia are the main causes of infections among hemodialysis patients, the majority of them caused by Staphylococcus species. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) has recently been reported with a probable antistaphylococcal activity. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of ASA on the risk of dialysis-related infection and septicemia among incident chronic hemodialysis patients.
methodsIn a nested case-control study, we identified 449 cases of vascular access-related infections and septicemia, and 4156 controls between 2001 and 2007 from our incident chronic hemodialysis patients' cohort. Cases were defined as patients hospitalized with a main diagnosis of vascular access-related infection or septicemia on the discharge sheet (ICD-9 codes). Up to ten controls per case were selected by incidence density sampling and matched to cases on age, sex and follow-up time. ASA exposure was measured at the admission and categorized as: no use, low dose (80-324 mg/d), high dose (≥325 mg/d). Odds ratios (OR) for infections were estimated using multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders.
resultsCompared to no use, neither dose of ASA was associated with a decreased risk of infection: low dose (OR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.82-1.28) and high dose (OR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.96-1.75). However, diabetes (OR = 1.32, 95 % CI = 1.07-1.62) and anticoagulant use (OR = 1.62, 95 % CI = 1.30-2.02) were associated with a higher risk.
conclusionAmong hemodialysis patients, ASA use was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalizations for dialysis-related infections or septicemia. However, ASA may remain beneficial for its cardiovascular indications.
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.