ArticleBMJ open2022
Identifying classification systems regarding vascular access for haemodialysis: protocol for a scoping review.
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.
- Robotic surgery in healthcare: current challenges, technological advances, and global implementation prospects.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Validation of arteriovenous access stage (AVAS) classification: a prospective, international multicentre study.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Article
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
introductionClassifications are important clinical tools that enable data arrangement, patient categorisation and comparative research. The care of patients with end-stage renal disease who have vascular access requires collaboration of several specialists. In such a field, where several different specialties overlap, strong evidence and well-grounded recommendations for good practice are essential. In this protocol, we aim to search the literature to identify classification systems regarding vascular access for haemodialysis. This protocol serves as a pragmatic tool for setting a systematic approach using scoping review methodology. It also aims to make the study transparent and avoid potential duplication. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for the conduct of scoping reviews during the course of the proposed review. Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry will be searched by two researchers. Titles and abstracts will be screened and articles featuring classifications regarding vascular access for haemodialysis will be eligible for full-text analysis. There will be no age, sex or race limitation for the study populations. The title and abstract (if abstract available) must be in English but there will be no language restrictions for full-text review. Databases will be searched from inception to the date of search. All patients indicated for creation or placement of vascular access will be eligible, as well as patients with already existing vascular access. Classifications regarding preprocedural assessment, vascular access insertion or creation, complications and their management will be included in the study. Classifications regarding peritoneal dialysis will not be eligible. A comprehensive summary of the available evidence will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and the review are exempt from ethical approval as there is no direct patient involvement and the review will summarise data from already published literature. The final article will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
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.