Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39664943›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in nephrology2024

Comparative iron management in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients: a systematic review.

Thomas S van Lieshout, Anastasia K Klerks, Osman Mahic, Robin W M Vernooij, Michele F Eisenga, Brigit C van Jaarsveld, Alferso C Abrahams

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Thomas S van LieshoutDepartment of Nephrology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Research Institute Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Anastasia K KlerksDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Osman MahicDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Robin W M VernooijDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Michele F EisengaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Brigit C van JaarsveldDepartment of Nephrology, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Research Institute Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Alferso C AbrahamsDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients with kidney failure undergoing dialysis often suffer from anemia. Iron deficiency, along with a shortage in erythropoietin, is a common cause. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients may have a different iron metabolism compared to hemodialysis (HD) patients. This study aims to compare both dialysis modalities regarding their differences in iron management. Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase were screened for randomized controlled trials and observational studies including both patients on HD or PD with information on iron management. Outcomes for iron management for this systematic review included: prevalence of supplementation, route of administration, dose, frequency and hemoglobin and iron status parameters. Results: 15 eligible studies (930,436 patients), of which 8 cohort and 7 cross-sectional, were analyzed. The prevalence of intravenous (IV) iron supplementation ranged from 11.7% to 84.4% in HD patients, compared to 1.6% to 49.0% in PD patients. Ten studies reported that HD patients only received IV iron, while five studies reported this for PD patients. For oral iron supplementation, three studies involved HD patients, whereas seven studies involved PD patients. The cumulative monthly IV iron dose ranged from 108 to 750 mg in the HD group, compared to 65 to 250 mg in the PD group. Hemoglobin levels ranged from 10.0 to 12.0 g/dL in HD patients, versus 9.6 to 11.9 g/dL in PD patients. Conclusion: Iron management differs between HD and PD patients, with HD patients receiving higher doses and more frequent IV iron. There was significant heterogeneity in the outcomes between the studies, primarily due to the lack of a uniform global policy on iron management. Despite these differences, hemoglobin levels and iron status parameters were comparable between the two groups. Future research should explore the underlying mechanisms and broader impacts of iron treatment, including patient-reported outcomes, to optimize anemia management and improve quality of life for dialysis patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022336970.

Indexed as

anemiahemodialysisiron therapykidney failureperitoneal dialysis

Identifiers

PMID39664943
PMCPMC11631840

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.