ArticlePloS one2026
Dietary intake patterns and KDOQI guideline compliance among hemodialysis patients in Bangladesh: Gaps, misreporting, and clinical implications.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimal nutrition is a central to the care of people receiving maintenance hemodialysis, yet dietary intake in these patients is usually measured by self-report, and self-report is known to be unreliable. Evidence from resource-limited dialysis settings is scarce. This cross-sectional study assessed dietary intake among 181 adults receiving maintenance hemodialysis at four hospital-based units in Bangladesh, and examined how screening reported intake for plausibility changes conclusions about guideline adherence. Intake was measured by three non-consecutive 24-hour recalls and compared with the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) recommendations. Reporting plausibility was classified from the ratio of energy intake to estimated basal metabolic rate. Appetite was assessed using the Appetite and Diet Assessment Tool. Of 178 participants with complete data, 65.2% reported acceptable, 32.0% under-reported and 2.8% over-reported energy intake. In the cohort as a whole, only 20 of 176 (11.4%) met the energy target of 30-35 kcal/kg/day and 58 (33.0%) met the protein target of at least 1.0 g/kg/day. Screening changed these estimates in opposite directions according to the type of target. For intake targets, adherence rose once implausible reports were excluded: energy from 11.4% to 15.5% and protein from 33.0% to 47.4%. For restriction targets the reverse occurred: apparent adherence to the sodium limit fell from 73.6% to 65.5% and to the phosphorus limit from 88.2% to 84.5%. The phosphorus-to-protein ratio exceeded 12 mg/g in all but five participants. Poor appetite was common (42.0%) but did not correspond to lower measured intake, and was instead associated with reporting plausibility (p = 0.024). Unscreened self-reported intake simultaneously overstates dietary inadequacy and understates dietary excess, and should not be used unfiltered to guide nutritional decisions in this population.
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.