ArticleBMC nephrology2019
Clinical outcomes of hemodialysis patients in a public-private partnership care framework in Italy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An international public-private partnership model for kidney replacement therapy in Uzbekistan: lessons and challenges.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Chronic kidney disease and gut microbiota.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Hospital services under public-private partnerships, outcomes and, challenges: A literature review.Journal of public health research · 2022Review
- Clinical and ultrasonographic screening for carpal tunnel syndrome in hemodialysis patients.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInnovative care models such as public-private partnerships (PPPs) may help meet the challenge of providing cost-effective high-quality care for the steadily growing and complex chronic kidney disease population since they combine the expertise and efficiency of a specialized dialysis provider with the population care approach of a public entity. We report the five-years main clinical outcomes of a population of patients treated on hemodialysis within a PPP-care model in Italy.
methodsThis descriptive retrospective cohort study consisted of all consecutive hemodialysis patients treated in the NephroCare-operated Nephrology and Dialysis unit of the Seriate Hospital in 2012-2016, which exercises a PPP-care model. Clinical and treatment information was obtained from the European Clinical Database. Hospitalization outcomes and cumulative all-cause mortality incidences that accounted for competing risks were calculated.
resultsWe included 401 hemodialysis patients (197 prevalent and 204 incident patients) in our study. The mean cohort age and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index were 67.0 years and 6.7, respectively. Patients were treated with online high-volume hemodiafiltration or high-flux hemodialysis. Parameters of treatment efficiency were above the recommended targets throughout the study period. Patients in the PPP experienced benefits in terms of hospitalization (average number of hospital admissions/patient-year: 0.79 and 1.13 for prevalent and incident patients, respectively; average length of hospitalization: 8.9 days for both groups) and had low cumulative all-cause mortality rates (12 months: 10.6 and 7.8%, 5 years: 42.0 and 35.9%, for prevalent and incident patients, respectively).
conclusionsResults of our descriptive study suggest that hemodialysis patients treated within a PPP-care model framework received care complying with recommended treatment targets and may benefit in terms of hospitalization and mortality outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.