ReviewJournal of nephrology2020
Single needle hemodialysis: is the past the future?
Review in Journal of nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficiency comparison between new single-needle dialysis and conventional double-needle dialysis and exploration of the optimal prescription parameters for single-needle hemodialysis.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2025Trial
- A Novel Single-Needle Distal Return Strategy Achieves Sustained Dialysis Efficacy and Eliminates Reinterventions in High-Risk Arteriovenous Fistulas.Kidney medicine · 2026Article
- Single Lumen Alternating Micro-Batch Hemodiafiltration (SLAMB-HDF): A Device for Minimally Invasive Renal Replacement Therapy.Kidney360 · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whereas the usual way to gain access to the vascular bed for hemodialysis is by inserting two needles, an alternative option based on the introduction of only one needle has been available for several decades. Although single needle hemodialysis gradually lost popularity in the early nineties of last century, this option now seems to make a come-back, with the current change in patient mix towards more elderly and cardio-vascular disease and the appearance of more flexible hardware. Single needle hemodialysis offers several advantages, such as the possibility to puncture small or maturing access systems, a decrease in number of punctures with less potential access damage and subsequent complications, the avoidance of central vein catheter use, and an improved quality of life by reducing puncture-related pain, stress and complications. The main drawback is recirculation which however can be overcome (if considered necessary) by making dialysis somewhat longer and in addition has more impact on removal of small water soluble compounds than on clearance of the more toxic difficult to remove solutes (middle molecules and protein bound compounds). Effective dialyzer blood flow with single needle dialysis cannot be much higher than 300 mL/min, which however also offers advantages by making short dialysis sessions less feasible and thus reducing the likelihood of intradialytic blood pressure falls, organ stunning and other negative outcomes of shorter dialysis. Direct outcome comparisons between single and double needle dialysis are not available but indirect data suggest no differences, in as far as efficient enough access perfusion can keep dialyzer blood flow adequate. The single needle method seems especially suited for the elderly and for home hemodialysis. Recent technological improvements have made the system more accessible and adequate, but further studies are needed to assess with modern methodologies the clearance kinetics of these systems, which could emanate in further technological fine-tuning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31538312What 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.