Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32029487›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Benefits and harms of high-dose haemodiafiltration versus high-flux haemodialysis: the comparison of high-dose haemodiafiltration with high-flux haemodialysis (CONVINCE) trial protocol.

Peter J Blankestijn, Kathrin I Fischer, Claudia Barth, Krister Cromm, Bernard Canaud, Andrew Davenport, Diederick E Grobbee, Jörgen Hegbrant, Kit C Roes, Matthias Rose and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for fatigue in people with kidney failure requiring dialysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. The Role of Online Hemodiafiltration in Contemporary Kidney Care.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2026
    Review
  4. Hemodiafiltration beyond the CONVINCE trial.Clinical kidney journal · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.

Peter J BlankestijnDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands P.J.Blankestijn@umcutrecht.nl.
Kathrin I FischerCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Center of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Claudia BarthB. Braun Avitum AG, Medical Scientific Affairs, Melsungen, Germany.
Krister CrommFresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH, Global Medical Office, Bad Homburg v.d.H, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5324-0695
Bernard CanaudFresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH, Global Medical Office, Bad Homburg v.d.H, Germany.
Andrew DavenportDepartment of Nephrology, University College of London, London, United Kingdom.
Diederick E GrobbeeJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jörgen HegbrantDepartment of Nephrology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Kit C RoesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Matthias RoseCharité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Center of Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
Giovanni Fm StrippoliDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Robin Wm VernooijDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5734-4566
Mark WoodwardThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
G Ardine de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Michiel L BotsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLB. Braun (Germany) · DEFresenius Medical Care (Germany) · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEJohns Hopkins University · USLund University · SEThe University of Sydney · AUUniversité de Montpellier · FRUniversity College London · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEnd-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR 7138).

Indexed as

Research DesignAgedEuropeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHemodiafiltrationHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRenal Dialysisend-stage kidney diseasehaemodiafiltrationhaemodialysisprotocolrandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32029487
PMCPMC7044930
OpenAlexW3005220628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.