Trial reportPloS one2025
The effect of a six-month programme of intradialytic cycling on survival and hospitalisations in people requiring haemodialysis: 5-year follow-up of the CYCLE-HD randomised controlled trial.
Trial report 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.
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
We have previously shown that a six-month programme of intradialytic cycling (IDC) improved cardiovascular structure and function, it is unclear whether these changes are associated with long-term benefits. The aim of this post-trial analysis was to evaluate a programme of IDC on all-cause mortality, hospitalisations and cardiovascular events at five-years. Mortality and hospitalisation data were collected from Hospital Episode Statistics and death certificates. Models were fitted unadjusted and adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, duration of dialysis, and receiving a kidney transplant. Cox proportional hazard models were used for time-to-event analysis to evaluate all-cause mortality. Hospitalisations were analysed using a negative binomial regression model, and length of stay using a generalised linear model. A composite outcome of time to first cardiovascular event, combining cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisations, was evaluated using a Cox model. There was no evidence of a statistically significant effect of treatment allocation on survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-1.76, p = 0.71). After adjustment, results remained non-significant (HR 1.22, 95% CI: 0.74-2.01, p = 0.43). There was no evidence of a significant effect on all-cause hospitalisations for unadjusted (p = 0.20) or adjusted (p = 0.25) models. Similar results are reported for cardiovascular hospitalisations (p = 0.30 and p = 0.17). For time to first cardiovascular event there was no evidence of a statistically significant effect (HR 1.39, 95% CI: 0.79-2.72, p = 0.26). The main findings show no evidence that a six-month programme of IDC affected all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, cardiovascular events, or length of stay in hospital at five-years.
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.