Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42758379›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026

Water conservation and circular water reuse in clinical haemodialysis facilities: a scoping review.

Arnie Sen, Kiren Bhatia, Matthew Olsen, Neelam Maheshwari, Adrian Goldsworthy, Michelle McLean, Loai Albarqouni, Thomas Titus

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Arnie SenFaculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
Kiren BhatiaFaculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
Matthew OlsenFaculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia. molsen@bond.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0974-524X
Neelam MaheshwariFaculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
Adrian GoldsworthyInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Michelle McLeanFaculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
Loai AlbarqouniFaculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
Thomas TitusFaculty of Health Sciences & Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHaemodialysis is a life-sustaining but resource-intensive therapy with a substantial water footprint, estimated globally at 270 billion litres annually and approximately 78,000 L per patient. Green dialysis strategies increasingly focus on reducing dialysate-related water demand and recovering reverse osmosis RW; however, evidence remains dispersed across clinical studies, service reports and feasibility analyses. This scoping review mapped and synthesised literature on water conservation and reuse strategies in haemodialysis.

methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with the Open Science Framework. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL were systematically searched. Extracted data included study design, setting, participants or dialysis service characteristics, water use measures, reported water savings, safety, and environmental or operational outcomes.

results14 studies were included: nine dialysate flow modification studies and five RW reuse studies. Reported water savings ranged from 24 L/haemodialysis session to 162.3 L/treatment. Reducing dialysate flow from 500 to 300 mL/min saved approximately 48 L/session without major short-term compromise in dialysis adequacy. Reusable volumes ranged from >250 L/session to 1.1 million m

conclusionWater conservation in haemodialysis appears feasible through reduced dialysate flow and reject water reuse, although the magnitude of gross mains water savings depends on reverse osmosis system efficiency and local infrastructure. Evidence is primarily single centre and heterogeneous; further standardised reporting and long-term clinical, operational, environmental and implementation studies are needed.

Indexed as

DialysateHaemodialysisReject waterSustainabilityWater

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.