SynthesisMedicine2020
Low-site versus traditional peritoneal dialysis catheterization: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- CT data analysis of catheter morphology and displacement in peritoneal dialysis: an exploratory study.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the complications of low-site peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter placement and traditional open surgery in peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion.
methodsThe following databases were searched from inception to September 6, 2019: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang. Eligible studies comparing low-site PD catheter placement and traditional open surgery in peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion were included. The data were analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3.
resultsSeven studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 504 patients were included in the low-site PD catheter placement group, and 325 patients were included in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with traditional open surgery, low-site PD catheter placement had a lower incidence rate of catheter displacement (odds ratios [OR] 0.11, 95% CI 0.05-0.22, P < .01) and noncatheter displacement dysfunction (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.31, P < .01). However, there was no difference between the 2 catheter insertion methods concerning bleeding (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23-1.22, P = .13), PD fluid leakage (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15-1.10, P = .07), hypogastralgia (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.80, P = .93), peritonitis (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32-1.54, P = .38), or exit-site and tunnel infections (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-1.03, P = .06).
conclusionLow-site PD catheter placement reduced the risk of catheter displacement and noncatheter displacement dysfunction and did not increase the risk of bleeding, PD fluid leakage, hypogastralgia, peritonitis, or exit site and tunnel infections. Additional large multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.
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.