Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669402›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2024

The weighing process in patients on hemodialysis: an opportunity to improve volume management.

Janosch Niknam, Sebastian Mussnig, Christoph Matthias, Maximilian Waller, Nikolaus Keil, Simon Krenn, Joachim Beige, Daniel Schneditz, Manfred Hecking

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Ten tips for the first hemodialysis sessions.Clinical kidney journal · 2026
    Review
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

9 authors.

Janosch NiknamMedical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine III, Division for Nephrology and Dialysis, Vienna, Austria.
Sebastian MussnigMedical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine III, Division for Nephrology and Dialysis, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2223-2067
Christoph MatthiasMedical University of Vienna, Center for Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Vienna, Austria.
Maximilian WallerMedical University of Vienna, Center for Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Vienna, Austria.
Nikolaus KeilMedical University of Vienna, Center for Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Vienna, Austria.
Simon KrennMedical University of Vienna, Center for Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Vienna, Austria.
Joachim BeigeKuratorium for Dialysis and Transplantation (KfH), Germany.
Daniel SchneditzMedical University of Graz, Division of Physiology & Pathophysiology, Otto Loewi Research Center for Vascular Biology, Immunology and Inflammation, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0124-1012
Manfred HeckingMedical University of Vienna, Department of Medicine III, Division for Nephrology and Dialysis, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8047-2395

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

body massclothing masshemodialysisultrafiltrationvolume management

Identifiers

PMID39669402
PMCPMC11635363

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.