SynthesisBJS open2025
Comparative outcomes of arteriovenous fistulas and grafts in haemodialysis: meta-analysis with subgroup analysis by fistula type and transposition status.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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.
- Effectiveness of prehabilitation strategies in enhancing recovery and postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in elderly patients: a multicentre propensity-weighted analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are preferred over arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) for haemodialysis, but effectiveness may vary by fistula subtype, access site, and transposition.
methodsIn this systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched up to 11 January 2025 for comparative studies of AVF versus AVG in adults. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals, standardized to 1-year outcomes (2-year effects summarized secondarily). Prespecified subgroups were AVF site (forearm versus upper arm), AVG site (forearm, upper arm, lower limb), AVF type (radiocephalic, brachiocephalic, brachiobasilic, basilic, brachial-brachial), and transposition. Observational studies were appraised with the National Institute of Health tool; randomized clinical trials with RoB 2. Meta-regression evaluated age, diabetes, and hypertension; certainty was appraised with GRADE.
resultsSixty-three studies (357 333 patients: 226 078 AVF; 131 255 AVG) were included. At 1 year, AVF was associated with higher primary (OR = 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 2.18), primary-assisted (OR = 1.69, 1.46 to 1.96), and secondary patency (OR = 1.69, 1.18 to 2.44), and lower overall complications (OR = 0.52, 0.34 to 0.78) and mortality (OR = 0.57, 0.34 to 0.98) versus AVG; primary failure and revision did not differ. Benefits were marked for transposed AVFs (primary-assisted OR = 2.07, 1.45 to 2.95; complications OR = 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88) and for upper-arm AVFs in primary patency (OR = 1.56, 1.05 to 2.31). Basilic AVF improved secondary patency (OR = 2.31, 1.17 to 4.57). Infection and thrombosis risks were lower for basilic and brachiobasilic AVF and upper-arm AVF. Meta-regression suggested diabetes modified effects (better secondary patency; fewer revisions), whereas age and hypertension did not. Certainty was generally low to moderate.
conclusionWhen standardized at 1 year, AVFs outperform AVGs for patency, complications, and mortality, with magnitude varying by site, transposition, and fistula type. Findings support individualized access planning and the role of transposed upper-arm AVFs when feasible. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251125422 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/home).
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.