ArticleClinical and experimental nephrology2021
Peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique training: what features influence learning time?
Article in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The association between embedded catheter implantation and hospitalization costs for peritoneal dialysis initiation: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2024Article
- Peritoneal Dialysis Patient Training Program to Enhance independence and Prevent Complications: A Scoping Review.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2023Article
- The Impact of Preoperative Risk Factors on Peritoneal Dialysis-Related Peritonitis: A Single-Center Prospective Study in Japan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWithin peritoneal dialysis (PD) complications, peritonitis remains a primary challenge for the long-term success of the technique. Proper technique training is essential, since it reduces peritonitis rates, but the adequacy of training has not been standardized. Furthermore, factors influencing training duration have not been well identified.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed all consecutive training sessions of incident PD patients in our Unit from January 2001 to December 2018.
resultsOur analysis included 135 patients, 25.9% were diabetic and median Charlson index (CCI) was 4 (IQR 2-6). Above 13 sessions was chosen as the cut off between usual and prolonged training, as it was our cohort's 75th percentile: 23% (31) had an extended training duration as per our study definition and 77% (104) had a usual training duration. The number of training sessions required increased with age (Spearman Rho 0.404; p = 0.000001), diabetic status (p = 0.001), unemployment status (p = 0.046) and CCI (Spearman Rho 0.369; p = 0.00001). Neither gender, cohabitation status, scheduled PD start, education level nor referral origin, were significant factors impacting training duration. Requiring longer training (> 13 sessions) was a significant risk factor for higher peritonitis risk, but extended training was not related to a shorter technique survival.
conclusionNumber of PD training sessions depends on the patient's age and comorbidities, but is not related to social, educational or employment status. Prolonged training duration was a statistically significant predictor of higher peritonitis risk, but it was not related to shorter permanence in PD in our series. Identifying these patients since the training period would be useful to adapt training schedule as an early prevention strategy to minimize the risk of peritonitis and plan a preemptive retraining.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33184742What 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.