SynthesisBMC nephrology2025
Patient perspective and satisfaction with different types of vascular access in hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Perceptions of Vascular Access and Quality of Life in Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Multicenter Study on Patient-Centered Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Understanding perceived quality of nursing care among adults receiving haemodialysis in Northern Ghana: A qualitative inquiry.PloS one · 2026Article
- Determinants of Patient Satisfaction with Vascular Access in Hemodialysis: Insights from a Multicenter Study in Italy.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess satisfaction and perspectives of adult hemodialysis (HD) patients on different vascular access (VA) types (AVF, AVG, CVC) by synthesizing quantitative studies using validated questionnaires, focusing on overall satisfaction, physical symptoms, social functioning, and complications.
methodsWe systematically searched Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies assessing adult HD patients' perspectives on VA using structured questionnaires. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model across three pairwise comparisons: AVF vs. CVC, AVF vs. AVG, and CVC vs. AVG.
resultsOf 1,253 records, 11 studies (n = 2910) met inclusion criteria. AVF patients had higher overall satisfaction compared to those with CVCs (MD: 7.06%, 95% CI: 2.98-11.14). Compared to AVG, AVF patients had higher overall satisfaction, though not statistically significant (MD: 5.12%, 95% CI: - 0.42 to 10.66; p = 0.069). Dissatisfaction with physical symptoms was significantly higher in AVF patients than in those with CVCs (MD: 8.76%, 95% CI: 4.19 to 13.34). Compared to CVC, AVF patients reported significantly lower dissatisfaction in both social functioning (MD: - 9.48%, 95% CI: - 15.98 to - 2.98) and dialysis-related complications (MD: - 10.08%, 95% CI: -12.66 to -7.50).
conclusionsAVFs are associated with higher overall patient satisfaction compared to other VA types. While AVF patients experience more physical discomfort, this is outweighed by significantly greater satisfaction in areas such as social functioning and dialysis-related complications. These findings emphasize the importance of considering patient-reported outcomes when evaluating VA options in HD care. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.