Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27699922›Full record

SynthesisNephrology (Carlton, Vic.)2017

Intravenous iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in haemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Simon D Roger, Martin Tio, Hyeong-Cheon Park, Hui Lin Choong, Bakleong Goh, Timothy Robert Cushway, Vanessa Stevens, Iain C Macdougall

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Anemia of cardiorenal syndrome.Kidney international supplements · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Simon D RogerRenal Research, Gosford, Australia.
Martin TioRoyal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Australia.
Hyeong-Cheon ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hui Lin ChoongSingapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Bakleong GohClinical Research Centre, Hospital Serdang, Kajang, Malaysia.
Timothy Robert CushwayVifor Pharma APAC, Singapore.
Vanessa StevensVifor Pharma, Melbourne, Australia.
Iain C MacdougallDepartment of Renal Medicine, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Vifor Pharma (United States) · USGosford Hospital · AUKing's College Hospital · GBRoyal North Shore Hospital · AUSerdang Hospital · MYSingapore General Hospital · SGYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimHigher dosages of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been associated with adverse effects. Intravenous iron is used to optimize ESA response and reduces ESA doses in haemodialysis patients; this meta-analysis evaluates the magnitude of this effect.

methodsA literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Clinical Trials from inception until December 2014, to identify randomized controlled trials of intravenous iron and ESA, in patients undergoing haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. Dosing of IV iron in concordance with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines was considered optimal iron therapy.

resultsOf the 28 randomized controlled trials identified, seven met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results of random-effects meta-analysis show a statistically significant weighted mean (95% CI) difference of -1733 [-3073, -392] units/week in ESA dose for optimal iron versus suboptimal iron. The weighted average change in ESA dose was a reduction of 23% (range -7% to -55%) attributable to appropriate dosing of intravenous iron. A comparison of intravenous iron versus oral iron/no iron (five trials) showed a greater reduction in ESA dose, although this did not reach statistical significance (weighted mean difference, 95% CI: -2,433 [-5183, 318] units/week). The weighted average change in ESA dose across the five trials was a reduction of 31% (range -8% to -55%).

conclusionSignificant reductions in ESA dosing may be achieved with optimal intravenous iron usage in the haemodialysis population, and suboptimal iron use may require higher ESA dosing to manage anaemia.

Indexed as

AdultAnemiaHematinicsHumansInjections, IntravenousIronRenal DialysisHematinicsIronchronic kidney diseaseepoetinESAhaemodialysisintravenous ironmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID27699922
PMCPMC5725690
OpenAlexW2527972208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.