ArticleKidney international reports2025
Randomized Trial of Twice-Weekly Versus Thrice-Weekly Hemodiafiltration for Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten tips to preserve and reuse water in nephrology.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
- New RCTs Advance Incremental Dialysis With Clinically-Guided HD and HDF-Based Prescriptions.Kidney international reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study presents the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing incremental hemodiafiltration (HDF) (i-HDF), beginning with twice-weekly sessions, to conventional thrice-weekly HDF (c-HDF) in incident dialysis patients with preserved residual kidney function (RKF): urea clearance (KrU) ≥ 2.5 ml/min. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label trial, 150 patients were randomized 1:1 to either i-HDF ( Results: No significant differences were found between groups in GFR decline, RKF parameters, or clinical outcomes such as hospitalizations, mortality, or anuria (5 cases in i-HDF vs. 4 in c-HDF). At 6 months, the i-HDF group reported slight improvements in quality of life, particularly in disease burden domains, though these gains diminished by 12 months. Fifteen patients in the i-HDF group transitioned to thrice-weekly HDF after an average of 193 days, and none refused the increase in frequency when indicated. The i-HDF group received significantly fewer dialysis sessions annually (69.1 vs. 122.6). Conclusion: Incremental HDF is a safe and effective option for patients with preserved RKF, offering similar clinical outcomes to conventional schedules, with modest short-term quality-of-life benefits and substantial resource savings. Further trials are needed to validate these findings and assess patient preferences and cost-effectiveness.
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.