ArticleRenal failure2020
Early-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a Chinese cohort study on outcome.
Article in Renal failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term survival of older patients undergoing urgent-start peritoneal dialysis.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Immediate-start peritoneal dialysis without break-in-period: an 18-year retrospective cohort study on patient survival.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2025Article
- Comparison of immediate-start peritoneal dialysis without break-in period and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a two-center retrospective audit.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Feasibility of a break-in period of less than 24 hours for urgent start peritoneal dialysis: a multicenter study.Renal failure · 2022Article
- Comparison of outcomes of urgent-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a single-centre experience.International urology and 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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.