ArticleHemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis2020
Patient-reported outcomes from the investigational device exemption study of the Tablo hemodialysis system.
Article in Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe recently completed an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study in which 30 patients were enrolled (13 patients previously on home hemodialysis (HHD) and 17 patients new to HHD) and treated with the Tablo Hemodialysis System (Outset Medical, Inc., San Jose, CA) for 8 weeks in-center and 8 weeks in-home with an interim 2-4 week transition period for home training.
methodsIn addition to assessments of urea kinetics, events related to safety, and operational issues (e.g., alarm resolution), we obtained data on several parameters of health-related quality of life, including time to recovery (TTR), the EQ-5D-5L (a well-validated measure of general health status), and the quality of sleep and related symptoms, to further assess the safety of HHD with Tablo. We compared results obtained during the in-center and in-home phases of the trial.
resultsTwenty-eight of 30 patients (93%) completed all trial periods. Adherence to the prescribed four treatments per week schedule was 96% in-center and 99% in-home. Median TTR was 1.5 hours (10th, 90th percentile range 0.17 to 12, mean TTR 3.68 ± 5.88 hours) during the in-center and 2 hours (10th, 90th percentile range 0 to 6.0, mean TTR 3.04 ± 5.14 hours) during the at-home phase (Wilcoxon signed rank p = 0.57). Median index values on the EQ-5D-5L were similar during the in-center (0.832, 10th, 90th percentile range 0.617 to 1, mean 0.817 ± 0.165) and in-home (0.826, 10th, 90th percentile range 0.603 to 1, mean 0.821 ± 0.163) trial phases (Wilcoxon signed rank p = 0.36). Patients reported feeling alert or well-rested with little difficulty falling or staying asleep or feeling tired and worn out when using Tablo in either environment.
conclusionWhen using Tablo in-home, patients reported similar TTR, general health status, and sleep quality and related symptoms compared to using Tablo in-center. (294 words).
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.