Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404364›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2024

Incremental dialysis: two complementary views.

Debaters Francesco Gaetano Casino, Mariana Murea, Moderators Jürgen Floege, Carmine Zoccali

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Green, Sustainable Nephrology: State of the Art Needs for Education and Implementation.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2025
    Review
  6. Twice Weekly versus Thrice Weekly Hemodialysis-A Pilot Cross-Over Equivalence Trial.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Debaters Francesco Gaetano CasinoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Hospital Madonna delle Grazie, Matera, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6297-5215
Mariana MureaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section on Nephrology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Moderators Jürgen FloegeDivision of Nephrology and Rheumatology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Carmine ZoccaliRenal Research Institute NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6616-1996
Biogem · ITOspedale Madonna Delle Grazie · ITUniversitätsklinikum Aachen · DEWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Franco Casino and Mariana Murea discuss today's knowledge about the 'incremental dialysis' concept. Franco Casino frames the problem by saying that, in the presence of substantial residual kidney function, kidney replacement therapy can begin with low doses and/or frequencies, to be gradually increased to compensate for any subsequent losses of residual kidney function, keeping the total clearance above the minimum levels of adequacy. He remarks that studies so far have documented that this approach is safe. He recognizes that adequate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to confirm the safety and simplify and standardize the practical aspects of this approach. Mariana Murea objects that most of the evidence gathered so far primarily derives from retrospective and observational studies, which can be influenced by socioeconomic constraints. She argues for the need for RCTs to provide compelling empirical evidence on the efficacy of incremental dialysis. Nephrologists are still reluctant to adopt this approach for various reasons, including unfamiliarity with the method, lack of practical guidance and financial disincentives. Several countries have ongoing or planned RCTs comparing incremental dialysis with conventional dialysis. These trials can shift the haemodialysis paradigm if they validate the safety and effectiveness of this approach. The moderators believe that the results of ongoing trials must be carefully interpreted, and further validation may be needed across different patient populations or healthcare settings. The ultimate goal is to gather robust evidence that could lead to widespread adoption of incremental haemodialysis, optimizing treatment, reducing overtreatment, preserving resources and improving patients' quality of life.

Indexed as

equivalent renal urea clearance (EKRU)haemodialysisincremental haemodialysisresidual kidney urea clearance (Kru)standard Kt/V (stdKt/V)

Identifiers

PMID38404364
PMCPMC10894032
OpenAlexW4391576574

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.