Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40622991›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

Comparative outcomes of image-guided percutaneous catheterization versus direct visualization catheterization for peritoneal dialysis: A meta-analysis.

Yi Li, Lifang Li, Meiju Wei, Yanxiong Qin, Yuechen Qin, Yue Zou, Haijian Zeng, Chunlan Li, Tingting Liao

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Yi LiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Lifang LiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Meiju WeiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Yanxiong QinThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Yuechen QinThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Yue ZouThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Haijian ZengThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Chunlan LiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.
Tingting LiaoThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, China.ORCID 0009-0000-6732-5588

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDebate persists on the optimal catheterization method for peritoneal dialysis (PD). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of image-guided percutaneous catheterization (IGPC) versus direct visualization catheterization (DVC) for peritoneal dialysis. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom the inception of the database until July 16, 2024, four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the central database) were searched for literature comparing IGPC versus DVC for peritoneal dialysis. Meta-analyses were conducted on infectious complications, mechanical complications, one-year PD catheter survival, and catheter removal rates.

resultsTotally 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising a total of 8,981 patients, of which 2,518 patients received IGPC and 6,463 patients received DVC. IGPC exhibited lower rates of infection complications (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.04) mechanical complications (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.99, P = 0.04) and catheter removal compared to DVC (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.78, P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in one-year PD catheter survival between the two groups (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.78-2.27, P = 0.30).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis concluded that IGPC was a safe and effective catheterization method for PD. The results demonstrated that IGPC significantly reduced the incidence of infection complications, mechanical complications, and catheter removal compared to DVC. No notable disparity in one-year PD survival was detected between the two groups.

trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42024606795).

Indexed as

CatheterizationPeritoneal DialysisCatheter-Related InfectionsHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40622991
PMCPMC12233245

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.