ArticleJournal of renal care2020
Systematic Fluid Assessment in Haemodialysis: Development and Validation of A Decision Aid.
Article in Journal of renal care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of a decision aid for recognition and correction of volume alterations (RecovaUpsala journal of medical sciences · 2020Trial
- Nutritional Challenges in Hemodialysis: A Perspective from Albania.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Fluid Management Based on Bioimpedance, Blood Volume, and Patient Reports: A Quality Improvement Project in Maintenance Hemodialysis.Kidney medicine · 2026Article
- Volume Assessment in Patients Undergoing Long-Term Dialysis.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2025Review
- Patient and Staff Perceptions on Using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in an Outpatient Haemodialysis Setting: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Patient perspectives of target weight management and ultrafiltration in haemodialysis: a multi-center survey.BMC nephrology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAbout a third of patients undergoing haemodialysis have poorly controlled fluid status, which may affect survival. Clinical assessment is subjective and imprecise, which has led to the increasing use of devices based on bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). However, BIS cannot provide a simple target applicable to all patients. Our aim was to develop and validate a decision aid combining clinical assessment of fluid status with information from BIS in target weight determination.
methodsThe decision aid was based on empirical experience and a literature review identifying physiological parameters already used in the clinical assessment of fluid status. Content validity was established by patient representatives, interdisciplinary stakeholders and external experts, who assessed item relevance and comprehensiveness. Reliability was assessed by inter-rater agreement analysis between nurses assessing typical patient cases.
resultsThe decision aid for Recognition and Correction of Volume Alterations (RECOVA) consists of three parts (1) a scoring system; (2) thresholds and triggers; (3) a decision aid algorithm. Agreement between raters in the assessment of symptoms was almost perfect, with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient > 0.90. Agreement in clinical response was only fair, but increased to moderate, with training and self-reported confidence.
conclusionRECOVA may enable systematic clinical assessment of fluid status, facilitating early recognition of fluid alterations, and incorporation of bioimpedance into target weight management. However, implementation into clinical practice will require training of staff. Clinical intervention studies are required to evaluate if RECOVA facilitates response to and correction of recognised fluid alterations.
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.