ArticleKidney research and clinical practice2016
Technique failure in Korean incident peritoneal dialysis patients: a national population-based study.
Article in Kidney research and clinical practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Efficacy of a Home-based Peritoneal Dialysis Management Program.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Home hemodialysis technique survival: insights and challenges.BMC nephrology · 2023Review
- Incidence and Risk Factors Associated with Technique Failure in the First Year of Peritoneal Dialysis: A Single Center Retrospective Cohort Study in Southern China.BMC nephrology · 2022Article
- Epidemiological characteristics of cancers in patients with end-stage kidney disease: a Korean nationwide study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Clinical outcomes of infection-related hospitalization in incident peritoneal dialysis patients.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2020Article
- Incremental Peritoneal Dialysis May be Beneficial for Preserving Residual Renal Function Compared to Full-dose Peritoneal Dialysis.Scientific reports · 2019Observational
- Risk factors associated with outcomes of peritoneal dialysis in Taiwan: An analysis using a competing risk model.Medicine · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnique failure is an important issue for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. In this study, we aimed to analyze technique failure rate in detail and to determine the predictors for technique failure in Korea.
methodsWe identified all patients who had started dialysis between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2008, in Korea, using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. A total of 7,614 PD patients were included, and the median follow-up was 24.9 months.
resultsThe crude incidence rates of technique failure in PD patients were 54.1 per 1,000 patient-years. The cumulative 1-, 2-, and 3-year technique failure rates of PD patients were 4.9%, 10.3%, and 15.6%, respectively. However, those technique failure rates by Kaplan-Meier analysis were overestimated compared with the values by competing risks analysis, and the differences increased with the follow-up period. In multivariate analyses, diabetes mellitus and Medical Aid as a crude reflection of low socioeconomic status were independent risk factors in both the Cox proportional hazard model and Fine and Gray subdistribution model. In addition, cancer was independently associated with a lower risk of technique failure in the Fine and Gray model.
conclusionTechnique failure was a major concern in patients initiating PD in Korea, especially in diabetic patients and Medical Aid beneficiaries. The results of our study offer a basis for risk stratification for technique failure.
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.