Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38521518›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Effects of haemodiafiltration or haemofiltration compared with haemodialysis on prognosis in patients with end-stage renal disease: protocol an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials with trial sequential analysis.

Fan Zhang, Jing Liao, Yan Bai, Zixuan Zhang, Liuyan Huang, Yifei Zhong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Haemodiafiltration versus high-flux haemodialysis-a Consensus Statement from the EuDial Working Group of the ERA.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2025
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fan ZhangDepartment of Nephrology A, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jing LiaoDepartment of Nephrology A, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yan BaiDepartment of Cardiology, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zixuan ZhangDepartment of Nephrology A, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Liuyan HuangDepartment of Nephrology A, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yifei ZhongDepartment of Nephrology A, Longhua Hospital Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China sh_zhongyifei@shutcm.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-2462-3064
Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHaemodialysis is the most common treatment option for patients with life-sustaining end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In recent years, haemodiafiltration or haemofiltration has been widely used in patients with ESKD, and there are still conflicting findings as to whether both are superior to traditional haemodialysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were designed to determine whether haemodiafiltration or haemofiltration is more effective than haemodialysis in reducing all-cause mortality risk in patients with ESKD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library and Scopus search, including studies published before September 2023. Randomised controlled trials will be included exploring the effects of haemodiafiltration or haemofiltration compared with haemodialysis on prognosis in patients with ESKD. Outcomes of interest include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, dialysis adequacy and adverse effects. The Cochrane Collaboration tools (ROB-2) will assess the bias risk. Available data will be used to calculate effect sizes. Heterogeneity between studies will be evaluated with I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis was deemed exempt from ethics review. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023464509.

Indexed as

HemodiafiltrationHemofiltrationKidney Failure, ChronicMeta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRenal DialysisSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansPrognosisResearch DesignEnd stage renal failureMeta-AnalysisMortalitySystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38521518
PMCPMC10961500
OpenAlexW4393120221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.