ReviewSeminars in dialysis2022
Evidence on continuous flow peritoneal dialysis: A review.
Review in Seminars in dialysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A guide to uraemic toxicity.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026Review
- Analysis of risk factors for refractory peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Analysis of risk factor for peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Evidence on continuous flow peritoneal dialysis: A review.Seminars in dialysis · 2022Review
- Comparison of the effect of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in the treatment of end-stage renal disease.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- The Revival of Sorbents in Chronic Dialysis Treatment.Seminars in dialysisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical application of continuous flow peritoneal dialysis (CFPD) has been explored since the 1960s, but despite anticipated clinical benefits, CFPD has failed to gain a foothold in clinical practice, among others due to the typical use of two catheters (or a dual-lumen catheter) and large dialysate volumes required per treatment. Novel systems applying CFPD via the existing single-lumen catheter using rapid dialysate cycling may solve one of these hurdles. Novel on-demand peritoneal dialysate generation systems and sorbent-based peritoneal dialysate regeneration systems may considerably reduce the storage space for peritoneal dialysate and/or the required dialysate volume. This review provides an overview of current evidence on CFPD in vivo. The available (pre)clinical evidence on CFPD is limited to case reports/series with inherently nonuniform study procedures, or studies with a small sample size, short follow-up, and no hard endpoints. Small solute clearance appears to be higher in CFPD compared to conventional PD, in particular at dialysate flows ≥100 mL/min using two single-lumen catheters or a double-lumen catheter. Results of CFPD using rapid cycling via a single-lumen catheter are too preliminary to draw any conclusions. Continuous addition of glucose to dialysate with CFPD appears to be effective in reducing the maximum intraperitoneal glucose concentration while increasing ultrafiltration efficiency (mL/g absorbed glucose). Patient tolerance may be an issue since abdominal discomfort and sterile peritonitis were reported with continuous circulation of the peritoneal dialysate. Thus, well-designed clinical trials of longer duration and larger sample size, in particular applying CFPD via the existing catheter, are urgently required.
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.