ReviewInternational journal of nephrology2017
Dialysis Provision and Implications of Health Economics on Peritoneal Dialysis Utilization: A Review from a Malaysian Perspective.
Review in International journal of nephrology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- The burden of chronic kidney disease in Asia region: a review of the evidence, current challenges, and future directions.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2025Article
- Cost-Utility Analyses of Hemodialysis, Peritoneal Dialysis, and Kidney Transplantation in Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Review
- Work disability and employment status among advanced chronic kidney disease patients.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Peritoneal dialysis: Status report in South and South East Asia.Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2021Article
- Factors associated with quality of life among chronic kidney disease patients in Nepal: a cross-sectional study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Article
- Health related quality of life of dialysis patients in Malaysia: Haemodialysis versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.BMC nephrology · 2019Article
- Straight versus Coiled Catheters in Peritoneal Dialysis in a Tertiary Care Center in Malaysia.Indian journal of nephrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is managed by either lifesaving hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) or a kidney transplant. In Malaysia, the prevalence of dialysis-treated ESRD patients has shown an exponential growth from 504 per million population (pmp) in 2005 to 1155 pmp in 2014. There were 1046 pmp patients on HD and 109 pmp patients on PD in 2014. Kidney transplants are limited due to lack of donors. Malaysia adopts public-private financing model for dialysis. Majority of HD patients were treated in the private sector but almost all PD patients were treated in government facilities. Inequality in access to dialysis is visible within geographical regions where majority of HD centres are scattered around developed areas. The expenditure on dialysis has been escalating in recent years but economic evaluations of dialysis modalities are scarce. Evidence shows that health policies and reimbursement strategies influence dialysis provision. Increased uptake of PD can produce significant economic benefits and improve patients' access to dialysis. As a result, some countries implemented a PD-First or Favored Policy to expand PD use. Thus, a current comparative costs analysis of dialysis is strongly recommended to assist decision-makers to establish a more equitable and economically sustainable dialysis provision in the future.
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.