Trial reportTherapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy2025
Efficiency comparison between new single-needle dialysis and conventional double-needle dialysis and exploration of the optimal prescription parameters for single-needle hemodialysis.
Trial report in Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy, 2025. 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.
- Efficiency comparison between new single-needle dialysis and conventional double-needle dialysis and exploration of the optimal prescription parameters for single-needle hemodialysis.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2025Trial
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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the dialysis efficiency parameters between new single-needle dialysis and conventional double-needle dialysis and to explore the optimal prescription parameters for single-needle hemodialysis.
methodsThis study involved a prospective, cross-over design. Eight patients were randomly divided into two cohorts, which received the appropriate treatment. Relevant clinical data and dialysis-related parameters were collected for further analysis.
resultsEach of the patients enrolled in this study underwent nine sessions of single-needle dialysis and three sessions of double-needle dialysis. The average blood flow after 4, 4.5, and 5 h of single-needle dialysis was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than that with double-needle dialysis for the equivalent times. The online Kt/V value measured after 4 h of single-needle dialysis was significantly lower than that with 4 h of double-needle dialysis (p < 0.001). When replacing the dialyzer with a high-flux dialyzer (FX800) and extending the dialysis time to 5 h, there was no difference in the online Kt/V values (p = 0.341). There was also no difference in the ultrafiltration volume between single-needle and double-needle dialysis for the equivalent times. The calculation of the Kt/V and urea reduction rate (URR) showed that there was no difference between 5 h of single-needle dialysis and conventional double-needle dialysis (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe new modified single-needle system is safe and effective to support the dialysis treatment of maintenance hemodialysis patients. When adjusting the dialysis prescription to a high-flux dialyzer and extending the dialysis time to 5 h, it can achieve dialysis efficiency equivalent to that of conventional 4 h double-needle dialysis.
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.