Trial reportJournal of nephrology2024
Effect of no-touch versus conventional technique on arteriovenous fistula outcomes: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of the modified RADAR, No-touch, and conventional techniques on arteriovenous fistula outcomes.Renal failure · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutologous arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs) are the best type of vascular access in patients with kidney failure. However, the conventional technique has a high failure rate. We performed a randomised controlled trial to investigate whether the no-touch technique has a higher maturation and patency rate than that of the conventional technique for creating AVFs.
methodsThis study was a single-centre randomised controlled trial involving patients with kidney failure requiring an AVF for haemodialysis access. A total of 179 patients undergoing their first radial artery-cephalic fistula were randomized 1:1 to the no-touch technique (n = 90) or conventional technique (n = 89). The maturation and patency rate of the two techniques were compared and analysed.
resultsThe preoperative baseline data showed no differences between groups. When comparing the no-touch technique to the conventional technique, the maturation rate was 93% vs. 89% and the 1-year primary function patency was 72% vs. 62%, respectively. Factors associated with AVF failure included age > 55 years (OR = 2.417, 95% CI 1.242-4.703), female sex (OR = 2.149, 95% CI 1.099-4.202), and vein diameter ≤ 1.8 mm (OR = 3.664, 95% CI 1.714-7.832). For patients with small veins the maturation rate was 92.98% vs. 80% and the 1-year primary function patency was 68.42% vs. 40% for the no-touch technique and conventional technique, respectively.
conclusionsThe no-touch technique has a higher maturation and patency rate than the conventional technique for creating an autologous AVF, especially in patients with small veins. This technique may provide a better outcome for patients with small cephalic veins.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39085574What 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.