ReviewClinical kidney journal2026
Interpreting the PISCES trial on fish oil in hemodialysis patients: lessons on trial design, biological exposure, and outcome measurement.
Review in Clinical kidney journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fish oil supplements in patients with chronic kidney disease.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis experience an exceptionally high cardiovascular risk, characterized by frequent recurrent events and a longstanding lack of effective preventive therapies. Most cardiovascular trials in this population have yielded neutral results, highlighting important limitations in both therapeutic strategies and outcome assessment. The PISCES trial recently reported significant reductions in both first and recurrent cardiovascular events with high-dose omega-3 fatty acids in patients undergoing hemodialysis, using a recurrent-event framework to capture overall cardiovascular burden. In this focused narrative review, we critically appraise the PISCES findings within the broader context of omega-3 research in chronic kidney disease and dialysis. Particular emphasis is placed on how biological exposure, population selection, and outcome frameworks influence the detectability of cardiovascular benefit in high-risk populations. PISCES challenges the prevailing notion that cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis is largely unmodifiable and underscores the importance of aligning therapeutic interventions with outcome measures that reflect total disease burden. More broadly, the trial illustrates how methodological choices may critically influence the interpretation of cardiovascular efficacy in populations with dense event clustering and high competing mortality.
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.