ArticleBMJ open2025
Classifications of haemodialysis vascular access stenosis: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesVascular access (VA) stenoses play a significant role in the morbidity of the haemodialysed population. Classifications for diagnosis, assessment and proposal of treatment strategies can be useful clinical and methodological tools. This review aims to present a comprehensive summary and propose further methodological approaches.
designA systematic review of the literature, evaluating classifications for dialysis-related VA stenosis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched from inception to 7 December 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All articles containing classifications regarding dialysis VA were eligible, with no restrictions on the study type or language of the full text. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers performed the search and initial screening. Four vascular surgeons assessed the included classifications using a modified Buchbinder's critical appraisal tool to evaluate quality.
resultsFrom 4771 screened papers, 59 full-text papers were retrieved and 24 articles contained classifications. Three classifications were dedicated to VA stenosis, all based on the anatomical location of lesions. According to the modified Buchbinder's appraisal, the classifications were assessed as moderate-to-good quality. The literature disposes of immense inconsistency in terms of the definition of significant stenosis indicated for treatment.
conclusionsVA significant stenosis and its classification is a non-uniformly understood issue with many different criteria and categorisations. This basic methodological problem leads to inconsistent results. We recommend the unification of the criteria and their validation in prospective studies.
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.