ArticleClinical kidney journal2024
The weighing process in patients on hemodialysis: an opportunity to improve volume management.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 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.
- Ten tips for the first hemodialysis sessions.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hemodialysis relies on accurate body mass (BM) assessment to determine ultrafiltration volumes, but we have not identified published practice patterns disclosing how to handle clothing mass. Here we investigated the potential impact of clothing mass on predialysis BM determination, hypothesizing that a standardized template for clothing mass estimation enhances accuracy, compared with conventional practice. Methods: Measurements included dressed and undressed BM predialysis. A pre-established template for average clothing mass was used to approximate undressed BM from clothed measurements. Differences from undressed BM were compared using Bland-Altman plots and tested for statistical significance using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Results: After excluding erroneous results, data from 48 patients were analyzed. Thirty-six patients (75%) did not habitually estimate clothing mass, but used their dressed BM as the predialysis BM, while the other 12 patients (25%) reported deducting a self-estimated clothing mass from their clothed predialysis BM. The differences from undressed BM were 0.819 ± 0.462 kg and 0.342 ± 0.321 kg in these two groups, respectively, indicating that patients underestimated clothing mass. Using the template to deduct clothing mass from clothed predialysis BM, these differences could be reduced to 0.197 ± 0.220 kg and 0.133 ± 0.135 kg, respectively. The average differences using the patient-reported BM and the template-based BM made up 39.4% and 8.6% of the average subsequent ultrafiltration volume, respectively, suggesting that potential overestimation of the actual ultrafiltration volume could be reduced. Conclusion: A standardized template for clothing mass may be useful to derive representative predialysis BM, leading to more precise ultrafiltration calculation. Exact BM determination might improve volume management in hemodialysis.
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.