ArticleKidney research and clinical practice2026
Comparison of clinical outcomes based on dialysis modality and icodextrin usage in patients on peritoneal dialysis.
Article in Kidney research and clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is no conclusive evidence regarding the survival benefits of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) or the use of icodextrin. This study aimed to evaluate patient and technique survival among four groups divided based on peritoneal dialysis modality and icodextrin use over 1 year.
methodsWe specifically included patients who underwent a single peritoneal dialysis modality for at least 1 year during that period (n = 148). The participants were categorized into four groups for comparison: continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) without icodextrin (CAPD-ET, n = 39); CAPD with icodextrin (CAPD+ET, n = 35); APD without icodextrin (APD-ET, n = 40); and APD with icodextrin (APD+ET, n = 34).
resultsThe CAPD+ET group had a higher patient survival rate than that of the APD-ET group and also had a higher technique survival trend than that of the APD-ET group, despite no statistical significance. In patients without diabetes mellitus (DM), the APD-ET group had a poorer patient survival trend than those of the APD+ET or CAPD+ET groups. In patients without DM, the APD+ET group had a higher technique survival than the APD-ET group. In addition, the APD+ET group showed a higher technique survival trend than did the CAPD-ET group, despite non-statistical significance. The edema index after 1 year of follow-up was higher in the APD-ET group than in the other groups.
conclusionThe present study demonstrated that patients undergoing APD without icodextrin had poor patient and technique survival trends, which may be caused by poor volume control.
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.