Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34950483›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2021

Knowledge and Practice of Incremental Hemodialysis: A Survey of Canadian Nephrologists.

Anita Dahiya, Aminu Bello, Stephanie Thompson, Kara Schick-Makaroff, Neesh Pannu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anita DahiyaDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4280-5408
Aminu BelloDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Stephanie ThompsonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3109-6837
Kara Schick-MakaroffFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6200-3416
Neesh PannuDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncremental hemodialysis, a strategy to individualize dialysis prescription based on residual kidney function, may be associated with enhanced quality of life and decreased health care costs compared with conventional hemodialysis.

objectiveWe surveyed practicing Canadian nephrologists to assess knowledge, perceptions, and practice pattern on the use of incremental hemodialysis. DESIGN/

settingWe distributed a cross-sectional, web-based survey. We asked about incremental hemodialysis prescribing practices, including frequency of prescription, clinical factors used to determine suitability for treatment, and barriers to implementation. The survey was conducted from September 21 to October 30, 2020.

participantsWe distributed the survey to practicing Canadian nephrologists identified from a private membership list of the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), as well as to nephrologists named on a publicly available national list of practicing Canadian nephrologists created from provincial College of Physician registries. These were samples of convenience.

methodsWe conducted descriptive analysis of categorical data including frequencies for nominal variables and measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion (standard deviation) for ordinal variables. We used chi-square analysis to identify association between participant and practice characteristics and their opinions and attitudes toward incremental dialysis. We used simple thematic analysis on free-text responses on questions regarding the prescription of incremental hemodialysis, focusing on age and baseline management of cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities.

resultsThe response rate was 35% (243/691). Most (138/211, 65%) of the participants prescribed incremental hemodialysis using an individualized approach at the nephrologist's discretion. Most participants (200/203, 98%) did not report any policy for implementation. Residual urine output was identified as the most important factor for eligibility (112/172, 65%), followed by electrolyte stability (76/172, 44%) and patient goals of care (69/117, 40%). Most participants agreed that dialysis prescriptions should take residual kidney function into consideration; however, 74% of the participants disagreed with a statement that there was strong evidence supporting incremental hemodialysis. Barriers identified included patient safety, patient acceptance of dose escalation, and logistics of scheduling. Despite these barriers, 82% of participants felt that that incremental hemodialysis is feasible with their current resources and 78% agreed that with specific criteria, it is a safe option. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of our study is limited by its response rate of 35%; however, this is comparable with typical response rates seen in electronic surveys. Most participants practice in an academic setting, which may have introduced bias to the results.

conclusionsDespite the perception of limited evidence and a lack of guidance on implementation, incremental hemodialysis is frequently practiced by Canadian nephrologists. Barriers to implementation were identified, highlighting the need for research to guide practice.

Indexed as

end-stage kidney diseasehemodialysis prescriptionincremental hemodialysissurvey

Identifiers

PMID34950483
PMCPMC8689607
OpenAlexW4205486662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.