Observational studyBMJ open2026
Initial vascular access type and associated factors among incident haemodialysis patients: a multicentre retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe initial vascular access among incident haemodialysis patients, identify patient-level factors associated with starting haemodialysis with an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) rather than a central venous catheter (CVC), and explore clinical and biochemical status after 3 months.
designMulticentre retrospective observational study.
settingDialysis centres in six tertiary hospitals in Taizhou, southeastern Zhejiang, China, from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023.
participantsOf 1227 database records assessed, 6 were excluded (5 initial arteriovenous graft records and 1 record outside the prespecified study period), leaving 1221 incident haemodialysis patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was initial AVF rather than CVC use. Secondary exploratory outcomes were mean arterial pressure and biochemical measurements after 3 months; dialysis adequacy, access patency, access infection and mortality were unavailable.
resultsInitial access was an AVF in 446/1,221 patients (36.5%) and a CVC in 775/1221 (63.5%); CVCs comprised 413 tunnelled cuffed and 362 non-tunnelled catheters. Initial AVF use varied across hospitals from 18.9% to 49.0%. In a centre-adjusted model using 20 multiply imputed datasets, higher baseline haemoglobin (adjusted OR per 10 g/L 1.144, 95% CI 1.060 to 1.234), albumin (per 5 g/L 1.411, 95% CI 1.242 to 1.603) and calcium (per 0.1 mmol/L 1.112, 95% CI 1.052 to 1.176) and lower C-reactive protein (per doubling 0.845, 95% CI 0.797 to 0.896) were associated with initial AVF use. At 3 months, no AVF-CVC difference remained robust after baseline and centre adjustment and false-discovery-rate control.
conclusionsInitial AVF use was uncommon and was associated with baseline clinical status and centre. These observational findings support timely predialysis assessment and individualised vascular-access planning, but they do not show that access type caused subsequent biochemical differences.
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.