ArticleBMJ open2024
Barriers and facilitators for the adoption of peritoneal dialysis: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Percutaneous versus laparoscopic catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis: a meta-analysis.BMC nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Why health recommender systems struggle to reach clinical practice: A lifecycle-oriented systematic review.iScience · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of virtual nurse interventions in chronic disease self-management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Peritoneal Dialysis Education: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of Quality, Readability, and Reliability.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective home-based treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) that offers several advantages over in-centre haemodialysis, including better quality of life, increased autonomy and lower costs. Despite these benefits, PD remains underused globally, with wide variations in adoption rates across countries. Qualitative studies have explored the experiences, perceptions and decision-making processes of patients, caregivers and healthcare providers regarding PD, but their findings have not been systematically synthesised. This protocol outlines a systematic review of qualitative studies to identify and synthesise the multilevel factors that influence PD adoption. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Scopus) and grey literature sources for qualitative studies published in English from each database inception to June 2024 that explore barriers and facilitators to PD adoption. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts for eligibility based on predefined criteria. Eligible studies will include those that use qualitative methods (eg, interviews, focus groups, observations) to explore the perspectives of adult ESKD patients, their caregivers and/or healthcare providers on factors influencing PD adoption, initiation or maintenance. Data will be extracted using a standardised form and synthesised using thematic analysis. The methodological quality of included studies will be appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist. Confidence in the review findings will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as this study will merely synthesise data from published studies. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications as well as conference presentations. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42024570521.
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.