ArticleBMC nephrology2021
High-dose versus low-dose iron sucrose in individuals undergoing maintenance haemodialysis: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge-based clinical decision support system for the automated classification of anemia in hemodialysis patientsBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2025Observational
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravenous iron sucrose is becoming a prevailing treatment for individuals undergoing maintenance haemodialysis, but comparisons of dosing regimens are lacking. The aim of this retrospective review was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of proactively administered high-dose iron sucrose versus reactively administered low-dose iron sucrose in patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis.
methodsWe analysed the data of 1500 individuals with maintenance haemodialysis who were treated with either high-dose iron sucrose that was proactively administered (Group HD) or low-dose iron sucrose that was reactively administered (Group LD) at the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from Jan 1, 2008, to Dec 31, 2020. The primary endpoints were the cumulative doses of iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent; the secondary endpoints were the events of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, infection rate, and death from any cause.
resultsOf the 2124 individuals, 624 individuals were excluded because they met one or more of the exclusion criteria, thus resulting in 1500 individuals who were eligible for inclusion in the study (Group HD, n = 760 and Group LD, n = 740). The median follow-up for the two cohorts was 32 months (range: 25-36). A significant median difference was detected in the monthly iron dose between the groups (1121 mg [range: 800-1274] in the HD group vs. 366 mg [range: 310-690] in the LD group; p < 0.05). The median dose of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent was 26,323 IU/month (range: 17,596-44,712) in the HD group and 37,934 IU/month (range: 22,402-59,380) in the LD group (median difference: - 7901 IU/month; 95% CI: - 9632--5013; p = 0.000). A significant difference was detected in the secondary endpoints (266 events in 320 cases in the HD group vs. 344 events in 385 cases in the LD group) (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.51-0.79; p < 0.001). A significant difference was not observed in death from any cause (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.48-1.00; p = 0.361).
conclusionsFor individuals undergoing maintenance haemodialysis, high-dose iron sucrose that was proactively administered may be superior to low-dose iron sucrose that was reactively administered with low doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent.
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.