ArticleBMC nephrology2025
Hospital-based health technology assessment of central dialysis fluid delivery system for hemodialysis patients.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study employed a hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) to evaluate the economic value of the central dialysis fluid delivery system (CDDS) compared to the single-patient dialysis fluid delivery system (SPDDS) in hemodialysis. The findings offer evidence to support hospital procurement and clinical implementation decisions regarding CDDS.
methodsA comparative cost analysis was conducted using micro-costing data collected from three hospitals. Costs were estimated for both CDDS and SPDDS, and economic efficiency was evaluated across multiple hemodialysis machine configuration scales. The analysis included total costs, cost structures, and cost savings, along with their constituent components, to identify scenarios in which CDDS provides economic advantages.
resultsIn a dialysis center with 6 hemodialysis machines operating two shifts per day and serving 12 patients daily, CDDS reduced costs by 0.05% compared to SPDDS. As the number of machines increased from 6 to 50, the cost reduction rate rose from 0.05% to 21.08%, demonstrating enhanced economic benefits at larger scales. In a 50-machine center, CDDS saved approximately RMB 84 per treatment session and RMB 2,601,108 annually. The majority of cost savings came from reductions in consumables (74%) and labor (24%). One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed that CDDS consistently yielded cost savings, supporting the robustness of the costing model.
conclusionCDDS demonstrates significant economic value over SPDDS by reducing consumable and labor costs, proving to be a cost-effective solution in dialysis centers with 6 or more machines serving at least 12 patients daily. Clinical engineers play a key role in its implementation. CDDS is suitable for promotion in medium- to large-scale dialysis centers in China.
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.