ArticleClinical and experimental nephrology2025
Current position of Moncrief and Popovich's technique in patients on peritoneal dialysis: who really benefits from this technique from the perspective of mortality and peritonitis development?
Article in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe stepwise initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) using Moncrief and Popovich's technique (SMAP) is widely used for systemic PD introduction and catheter-related infection prevention. This study aimed to investigate patients who would benefit from SMAP in terms of mortality and PD-related peritonitis development.
methodsIn total, 328 consecutive patients underwent PD catheter implantation at our institute. Inverse probability of treatment weights was calculated, and patients who benefited from SMAP were explored retrospectively.
resultsOverall, 285 patients were analyzed (direct group, n = 96; SMAP group, n = 189). Patients in the SMAP group tended to have a lower mortality risk than those in the direct group, whereas this tendency decreased in the IPW-adjusted population. Peritonitis was observed in 40 and 85 patients in the direct and SMAP groups, and PD catheters were removed in 59 and 118 patients in the direct and SMAP groups. The two main causes were peritonitis and insufficient dialysis. The risk of mortality decreased with SMAP among patients with a nutrition risk index score for Japanese hemodialysis patients ≥ 8, prognostic nutritional index score ≤ 40, serum creatinine level < 8 mg/dl, and body mass index < 23 kg/m
conclusionPD catheter implantation using SMAP may not be mandatory in clinical practice. However, this technique can be a good option, depending on the patient, in terms of mortality and peritonitis. Personalized treatment strategies should be considered to improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40650695What 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.