ArticleIranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
Comparison of the Dialysis Adequacy Across Four Types of Dialysis Machines in Hemodialysis Patients.
Article in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. 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
Background: Chronic renal failure causes a gradual loss of kidney function. This study compares four types of dialysis machines for blood purification in hemodialysis patients. Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in 2024 at the Dialysis Department of Sepehr Dialysis Center and Pasteur Hospital in Kerman Province, Iran. It included 64 dialysis patients selected through convenience sampling. Four different dialysis machines, Fresenius 4008 S, Fresenius 4008 B, ATF1022, and B. Braun, and 102 blood samples were analyzed, with patients undergoing either one or two sessions of hemodialysis. Data were gathered using a questionnaire about demographic and clinical information before and after dialysis. Vital signs and biochemical tests were taken, and dialysis adequacy was measured using KT/V and urea reduction ratio (URR), where K = urea clearance, T = dialysis time, and V = urea distribution volume. Data were analyzed using chi-square, Results: The mean (SD) dialysis adequacy (KT/V) among patients was 1.21 (0.41), and the mean (SD) URR was 58.97 (7.65). Only 17.06% of patients achieved a URR greater than 65%, and 21.60% achieved a KT/V greater than 1.20, which are established indicators of hemodialysis adequacy. Although the performance of the four machines varied, with higher values observed for the Fresenius 4008 B (KT/V = 1.16 ± 0.299 and URR = 61.47 ± 8.48), there was no statistically significant difference between dialysis machine types and dialysis adequacy ( Conclusions: Healthcare officials and stakeholders should examine factors affecting dialysis adequacy and implement newer machines and better quality assurance programs.
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.