ArticleBMJ open2022
Clinical outcomes of automated versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis for end-stage kidney disease: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kidney Involvement in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Peritoneal Dialysis as the Preferred Modality.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Management of Chronic Heart Failure in Dialysis Patients: A Challenging but Rewarding Path.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Ten-Year Single-Center Study Examining Patient Survival after Commencing Long-Term Peritoneal Dialysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn increasing number of studies comparing automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) in clinical outcomes have been published since the publication of a systematic review and meta-analysis including three randomised controlled trials in 2007. We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore more clinical outcomes of APD versus CAPD for end-stage kidney disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol is conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Three databases-PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library-will be searched comprehensively from inception to 16 June 2022, without language restriction. Studies reporting clinical outcomes comparing APD with CAPD will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and then obtain and assess full texts of potential relevant articles for eligibility following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included observational studies will be assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The risk of bias of included randomised controlled studies will be assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and standard mean difference for continuous outcomes with corresponding 95% ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable as no personal information is collected from patients. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022311401.
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.