Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36675553›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients.

Seok Hui Kang, Bo Yeon Kim, Eun Jung Son, Gui Ok Kim, Jun Young Do

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Seok Hui KangDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu 42415, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-0195
Bo Yeon KimHealthcare Review and Assessment Committee, Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, Wonju 26465, Republic of Korea.
Eun Jung SonQuality Assessment Department, Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, Wonju 26465, Republic of Korea.
Gui Ok KimQuality Assessment Department, Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, Wonju 26465, Republic of Korea.
Jun Young DoDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu 42415, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6360-9310

Funding

The Basic Science Research Program through the NRF of Korea, funded by the Ministry of Education 2022R1I1A3072966The Medical Research Center Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning 2022R1A5A2018865
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the difference in patient survival according to the type of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) treatment used in the Korean hemodialysis (HD) population. This retrospective study analyzed the laboratory data from a national HD quality assessment program and the claims of Korea. Included participants were divided into three groups according to the type of ESA used during the 6 months of each assessment period as follows: the EP group (n = 38,043, epoetin-α or epoetin-β), the DP group (n = 10,054, darbepoetin-α), and the MR group (2253, continuous erythropoietin receptor activator). The ESA doses in the EP, DP, and MR groups were 6451 ± 3586, 5959 ± 3857, and 3877 ± 2275 unit/week, respectively. The erythropoiesis resistance indexes (ERIs) in the three groups were 10.7 ± 6.7, 9.9 ± 7.6, and 6.3 ± 4.1 IU/kg/g/dL, respectively. Kaplan−Meier curves revealed similar rates of patient survival among the three groups (p = 0.530). A multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the hazard ratios in the DP group and MR group were 1.00 (p = 0.853) and 0.87 (p < 0.001), respectively, compared to that of the EP group. The hazard ratio in the MR group was 0.87 (p = 0.001) compared to that of the DP group. Our study shows that the MR group had comparable or better patient survival than the EP and DP groups in the multivariate analysis. However, the ESA doses and ERI were considerably different among the three groups. It was difficult to determine whether the better patient survival in the MR group originated from the ESA type, ESA dose, ERI, or other hidden factors.

Indexed as

erythropoiesis-stimulating agenthemodialysismortalityoutcomesurvival

Identifiers

PMID36675553
PMCPMC9861937

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.