ReviewCureus2022
A Comparison Between the Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Arteriovenous Fistula Creation and Surgical Fistula Creation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vascular Access 4.0 for Hemodialysis: Toward a Needle-Free, Smart, Closed, and Connected System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of surgical versus percutaneous arteriovenous fistulas: a prospective study.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An endovascular arteriovenous fistula is a recent technological advancement in hemodialysis vascular access. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of endovascular arteriovenous fistula (eAVF) creation compared with surgical arteriovenous fistula (sAVF) creation among patients with chronic kidney disease. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until May 2021 to perform meta-analyses using random-effects models. Pre-specified primary outcomes were fistula maturation, procedure-related complications, and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were procedural technical success, procedure time, all adverse events, and medical expenditure. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of the interventions assessment tool, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were used to assess the quality of individual studies and the body of evidence, respectively. In seven studies including 860 patients, endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation had little to no effect on fistula maturation (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence intervals, 0.05 to 6.91). Meta-analysis could not be performed for procedure-related complications and patient satisfaction due to insufficient data. For secondary outcomes, endovascular arteriovenous fistula resulted in a slight to no difference in procedural technical success (odds ratio, 0.69: 95% confidence intervals, 0.04 to 11.98) and all adverse events (odds ratio, 6.31; 95% confidence intervals, 0.64 to 62.22). Endovascular fistula creation incurred less medical expenditure than sAVF (mean difference, USD 12760; 95% confidence intervals, -19710 to -5820). Meta-analysis for procedure time was not performed because one of the studies had a critical risk of bias. All of these outcomes were of low certainty of evidence or very low certainty of evidence. There was limited evidence for supporting endovascular arteriovenous fistula creation over conventional surgical arteriovenous fistula creation for patients with chronic kidney disease. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of eAVFs in selected populations.
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.