Evidence mapPaperPMID 30362116Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Biocompatible dialysis fluids for peritoneal dialysis.

Htay Htay, David W Johnson, Kathryn J Wiggins, Sunil V Badve, Jonathan C Craig, Giovanni Fm Strippoli, Yeoungjee Cho

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Htay HtayDepartment of Renal Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Street, Singapore, Singapore, 169856.
David W Johnson
Kathryn J Wiggins
Sunil V Badve
Jonathan C Craig
Giovanni Fm Strippoli
Yeoungjee Cho

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiocompatible peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions, including neutral pH, low glucose degradation product (GDP) solutions and icodextrin, have previously been shown to favourably influence some patient-level outcomes, albeit based on generally sub-optimal quality studies. Several additional randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating biocompatible solutions in PD patients have been published recently. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

objectivesThis review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of biocompatible PD solutions in comparison to standard PD solutions in patients receiving PD. SEARCH

methodsThe Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register was searched up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs and quasi-RCTs in adults and children comparing the effects of biocompatible PD solutions (neutral pH, lactate-buffered, low GDP; neutral pH, bicarbonate(± lactate)-buffered, low GDP; glucose polymer (icodextrin)) in PD were included. Studies of amino acid-based solutions were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Summary effect estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables, and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous variables. MAIN

resultsThis review update included 42 eligible studies (3262 participants), including six new studies (543 participants). Overall, 29 studies (1971 participants) compared neutral pH, low GDP PD solution with conventional PD solution, and 13 studies (1291 participants) compared icodextrin with conventional PD solution. Risk of bias was assessed as high for sequence generation in three studies, allocation concealment in three studies, attrition bias in 21 studies, and selective outcome reporting bias in 16 studies.Neutral pH, low GDP versus conventional glucose PD solutionUse of neutral pH, low GDP PD solutions improved residual renal function (RRF) preservation (15 studies, 835 participants: SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; high certainty evidence). This approximated to a mean difference in glomerular filtration rate of 0.54 mL/min/1.73 m AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis updated review strengthens evidence that neutral pH, low GDP PD solution improves RRF and urine volume preservation with high certainty. These effects may be related to increased peritoneal solute transport and reduced peritoneal ultrafiltration, although the evidence for these outcomes is of low certainty due to significant heterogeneity and suboptimal methodological quality. Icodextrin prescription increased peritoneal ultrafiltration and mitigated uncontrolled fluid overload with moderate certainty. The effects of either neutral pH, low GDP solution or icodextrin on peritonitis, technique survival and patient survival remain uncertain and require further high quality, adequately powered RCTs.

Indexed as

PeritoneumAdultBicarbonatesChildDialysis SolutionsGlucoseHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationIcodextrinKidneyPeritoneal DialysisPharmaceutical SolutionsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrineBicarbonatesDialysis SolutionsGlucoseIcodextrinPharmaceutical Solutions

Identifiers

PMID30362116
PMCPMC6517187

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.