ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Comparison of outcomes of urgent-start and conventional-start peritoneal dialysis: a single-centre experience.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Risk factors of different mortality periods in older patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing urgent-start peritoneal dialysis: a retrospective observational study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Observational
- Risk factors for short-term all-cause mortality in patients with end stage renal disease: a scoping review.BMC nephrology · 2024Article
- Urgent Implantation of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter in Chronic Kidney Disease and Acute Kidney Injury-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been a growing interest in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients with end-stage kidney disease to avoid central venous catheter use and its complications. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between urgent-start PD (defined as PD commencement within 2 weeks of PD catheter insertion) and conventional-start PD.
methodsThis was a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all incident PD patients at Singapore General Hospital between January 2017 and February 2018. The primary outcome was dialysate leak. Secondary outcomes included catheter malfunction, catheter readjustment, exit-site infection, peritonitis, technique and patient survival.
resultsA total of 187 incident PD patients were included. Of these, 66 (35%) initiated urgent-start PD. Dialysate leak was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD groups (7.6% versus 0.8%; p = 0.02) whilst catheter malfunction (4.5% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.70) and catheter readjustment (1.5% vs. 2.5%; p = 1.00) were comparable between the two groups. Exit-site infection was comparable (IRR: 0.66 95% CI 0.25-1.74) whilst peritonitis was significantly higher in urgent-start PD compared with conventional-start PD (incidence risk ratio (IRR) 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-7.44). Time to first episode of peritonitis, particularly Gram-positive peritonitis was significantly shorter with urgent-start PD. Technique survival (hazards ratio (HR) 1.95, 95% CI 0.89-4.31) and patient survival (HR 1.46, 95% CI 0.44-4.87) were comparable between the two groups.
conclusionUrgent-start PD was associated with higher risks of dialysate leak and peritonitis but comparable technique and patient survival compared to conventional-start PD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32895864What 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.