SynthesisBMC nephrology2025
Percutaneous versus laparoscopic catheter placement for peritoneal dialysis: a 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 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.
- Successful Simultaneous Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Removal and Reinsertion During Surgical Repair of Acute Small Bowel Perforation: A Case Report.Case reports in nephrology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD) is one of the relatively safe and effective renal replacement therapies for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). There are three main types of PD catheter insertion procedures: open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and percutaneous insertion. Currently, open surgery is most commonly used in clinical practice, although some hospitals have adopted laparoscopic and percutaneous insertion methods. However, there is still a lack of large-scale studies comparing percutaneous and laparoscopic catheter placement. This study aims to collect and synthesize existing literature data, analyze complications related to PD catheter insertion, and determine the optimal catheter placement method.
methodsThis Meta-analysis has been registered on the PROSPERO platform (CRD42024509930). Articles published in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI were retrieved, statistically analyzed, and reviewed. The statistical software Review Manager version 5.4.1 was used for data analysis.
resultsA total of nine studies on surgical outcomes and complications were included. The article types included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one prospective study, and seven retrospective studies. The methodological quality of the 8 included non-randomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The average score was 7.4 points (range: 6 to 8), indicating an overall high study quality. According to existing literature, laparoscopic PD catheter insertion may reduce postoperative bleeding risk but is associated with a longer surgical duration. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and percutaneous catheter insertion methods in terms of the length of hospital stays, early and late complications-including peritonitis, exit-site infections, catheter malfunction and failure, hernia, and dialysate leakage.
conclusionData analysis indicates that the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and percutaneous PD catheter insertion are similar. However, large-scale, multicenter studies are still needed to further validate these findings. 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.