ReviewBMC nephrology2026
A narrative review of routine haematological and biochemical parameter monitoring in maintenance haemodialysis patients and comparison of clinical guidelines.
Review in BMC nephrology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Routine monitoring of haematological and biochemical parameters is essential in managing people with kidney failure on maintenance haemodialysis (HD), guiding assessment of HD adequacy and kidney failure-associated complications, including anaemia, chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder, and electrolyte disturbances. Currently, however, there is no consensus on optimal testing frequency of key parameters, with variations across clinical guidelines and limited robust evidence. This narrative review synthesises current guideline recommendations and empirical research on the frequency and scope of routine laboratory testing of people on maintenance HD, focusing on areas of consensus, controversy, and future research needs. Key laboratory parameters were established to standardise the evaluation of foundational and region-specific guidelines, and direct literature searches for research within the last decade. Given the paucity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), this narrative review is derived primarily from observational research and clinical guidelines. Guideline recommendations varied from flexible, clinician-driven frequencies in foundational guidelines, to prescriptive schedules in region-specific guidelines, though with consistencies across specific parameters. Empirical evidence indicated benefits of reduced testing frequency broadly when addressing medical over-testing. However, limited evidence exists to link parameter-specific testing intervals with outcomes such as hospitalisation, sustaining international variation in guidelines. Future research should pair patient-reported outcome measures with parameter target levels longitudinally in pragmatic RCTs to clarify causal links between optimal monitoring intervals and patient outcomes to develop risk-stratified monitoring frameworks for sustainable HD care.
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.