Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35343378›Full record

SynthesisRenal failure2022

Efficacy and safety of expanded hemodialysis in hemodialysis patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Yuchao Zhao, Liangying Gan, Qingyu Niu, Mengfan Ni, Li Zuo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Renal failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Expanded hemodialysis: what's up, Doc?Clinical kidney journal · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yuchao ZhaoDepartment of Nephrology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, P. R. China.
Liangying GanDepartment of Nephrology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-0125-1691
Qingyu NiuDepartment of Nephrology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, P. R. China.
Mengfan NiDepartment of Nephrology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, P. R. China.
Li ZuoDepartment of Nephrology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, P. R. China.
Peking University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExpanded hemodialysis (HDx) is a new dialysis modality, but a systematic review of the clinical effects of using HDx is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of HDx for hemodialysis (HD) patients.

methodsPubMed, the Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for prospective interventional studies comparing the efficacy and safety of HDx with those of high flux HD or HDF in HD patients.

resultsEighteen trials including a total of 853 HD patients were enrolled. HDx increased the reduction ratio (RR) of β2-microglobulin (SMD 6.28%, 95% CI 0.83, 1.73,

conclusionsThis meta-analysis indicated that compared with high-flux HD and HDF, HDx can increase the clearance of medium and large-molecular-weight uremic toxins. And it does not increase the loss of albumin compared with HDF.

Indexed as

Dialysis SolutionsRenal DialysisAlbuminsHumansProspective StudiesAlbuminsDialysis SolutionsAlbuminexpanded hemodialysismeta-analysisuremic toxin

Identifiers

PMID35343378
PMCPMC8967190
OpenAlexW4220826269

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.