Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32459279›Full record

ArticleJornal brasileiro de nefrologia2020

Brazilian Dialysis Census: analysis of data from the 2009-2018 decade.

Precil Diego Miranda de Menezes Neves, Ricardo de Castro Cintra Sesso, Fernando Saldanha Thomé, Jocemir Ronaldo Lugon, Marcelo Mazza Nasicmento

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Jornal brasileiro de nefrologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
22.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 214 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Precil Diego Miranda de Menezes NevesUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina, Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1089-6763
Ricardo de Castro Cintra SessoUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-0073
Fernando Saldanha ThoméUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5378-3510
Jocemir Ronaldo LugonUniversidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, RJ, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6791-3910
Marcelo Mazza NasicmentoUniversidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2876-2923
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal do Paraná · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRUniversidade Federal Fluminense · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNational data on chronic dialysis treatment are essential for the development of health policies that aim to improve patient treatment.

objectiveTo present data from the Brazilian Society of Nephrology on patients with chronic dialysis for kidney disease in July 2018, making a comparative analysis of the past 10 years.

methodsData collection from dialysis units, with filling in an online questionnaire for 2018. Data from 2009, 2013 and 2018 were compared.

results288 (36.6%) centers answered the questionnaire. In July 2018, the estimated total number of patients on dialysis was 133,464. Estimates of the prevalence and incidence rates of patients undergoing dialysis treatment per million of the population (pmp) were 640 and 204, respectively, with average annual increases of 23.5 pmp and 6 pmp for prevalence and incidence, respectively. The annual gross mortality rate was 19.5%. Of the prevalent patients, 92.3% were on hemodialysis and 7.7% on peritoneal dialysis, with 29,545 (22.1%) on the waiting list for transplantation. Median bicarbonate concentration in the hemodialysis bath was 32 mEq/L. Venous catheters were used as access in 23.6% of the hemodialysis patients. The prevalence rate of positive serology for hepatitis C showed a progressive reduction (3.2%).

conclusionThe absolute number of patients and rates of incidence and prevalence in dialysis in the country increased substantially in the period, although there are considerable differences in rates by state. There has been a persistent increase in the use of venous catheters as an access for dialysis; and reduction in the number of patients with positive serology for hepatitis C.

Indexed as

AgedBicarbonatesBrazilCensusesCentral Venous CathetersFemaleHepatitis CHistory, 21st CenturyHumansIncidenceKidney Failure, ChronicKidney TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedNephrologyPeritoneal DialysisBicarbonates

Identifiers

PMID32459279
PMCPMC7427641
OpenAlexW3028104645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.