ReviewPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2026
Intraperitoneal pressure measurements in children on peritoneal dialysis: a review and European practice survey.
Review in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prescribing an adequate intraperitoneal dialysate volume is essential in peritoneal dialysis (PD) to balance optimal solute and fluid removal against the risk of increased intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) and to prevent increased reabsorption and mechanical complications. Since the description of manual hydrostatic IPP measurement (IPPM) in children in 1996, a few small observational studies in children and adults have provided limited evidence on the acceptable upper limit of IPP and associated complications. We conducted a practice survey across European pediatric dialysis centers, which showed that of the responding 47 centers, 68% routinely perform IPPM, but the frequency, mode of measurement, accepted upper limit of IPP, and interpretation of IPPM results vary considerably. In this narrative review, we present the current knowledge on IPP and the rationale for a standardized three-point IPPM, a prerequisite to obtain valid scientific data on the relation of IPP with patient outcome, e.g., by means of registries and adequately powered prospective studies. To date, the role of IPPM in improving outcomes for children on PD is uncertain. Advanced, continuous IPPM technologies providing precise, large-scale IPP data together with PD efficiency and tolerability data will improve our understanding of the impact of IPP on patient outcomes.
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.