ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Comparison the clinical outcomes of intravenous and subcutaneous erythropoietin administration in hemodialysis patients of plateau regions.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) is the mainstay of anemia management in hemodialysis patients. Intravenous and subcutaneous routes are the most commonly used administration methods. While differences in pharmacokinetics and efficacy between the two routes have been reported, limited data are available regarding patients residing in high-altitude regions, where chronic hypoxia may alter erythropoiesis. Therefore, we compared the required epoetin dose and the incidence of adverse events of intravenous and subcutaneous administration in hemodialysis patients in the southwestern China plateau region.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study including 5896 adult patients between January 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023. After ensuring no statistical differences in baseline data through propensity score matching, we compared the epoetin dosage and adverse event incidence between the two administration routes (intravenous and subcutaneous) during one year follow-up period.
resultsThe intravenous group required higher epoetin doses. In the short term, the intravenous group achieved a higher rate of hemoglobin attainment (Hb ≥ 110 g/L) than the subcutaneous group, but rates were comparable at one year. Serum potassium was lower in the subcutaneous group within one year. Adverse event incidence and hemoglobin level were similar between the two groups.
conclusionsFor hemodialysis patients in the southwestern plateau regions of China, subcutaneous and intravenous epoetin administration show comparable efficacy, with subcutaneous therapy being more dose-efficient and potentially more practical in clinical use. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinical trial number is 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.