Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27462173›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nephrology and renovascular disease2016

Clinical, patient-related, and economic outcomes of home-based high-dose hemodialysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis.

Nicos Mitsides, Sandip Mitra, Tom Cornelis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Home haemodialysis: a cradle of new ideas.Journal of nephrology · 2018
    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.

Nicos MitsidesDepartment of Renal Medicine, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Center, Manchester; National Institute for Healthcare Research Devices for Dignity Healthcare Co-operative, Sheffield, UK.
Sandip MitraDepartment of Renal Medicine, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Center, Manchester; National Institute for Healthcare Research Devices for Dignity Healthcare Co-operative, Sheffield, UK.
Tom CornelisDepartment of Nephrology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite technological advances in renal replacement therapy, the preservation of health and quality of life for individuals on dialysis still remains a challenge. The high morbidity and mortality in dialysis warrant further research and insight into the clinical domains of the technique and practice of this therapy. In the last 20 years, the focus of development in the field of hemodialysis (HD) has centered around adequate removal of urea and other associated toxins. High-dose HD offers an opportunity to improve mortality, morbidity, and quality of life of patients with end-stage kidney disease. However, the uptake of this modality is low, and the risk associated with the therapy is not fully understood. Recent studies have highlighted the evidence base and improved our understanding of this technique of dialysis. This article provides a review of high-dose and home HD, its clinical impact on patient outcome, and the controversies that exist.

Indexed as

hemodialysishigh dosehome dialysisoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID27462173
PMCPMC4940011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.