ArticleKidney international reports2025
Patients With Nonfast Peritoneal Transfer Rate are More Suitable for Incremental Peritoneal Dialysis.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies have shown that incremental peritoneal dialysis (iPD) improves the prognosis of patients on PD with tolerable residual kidney function (RKF). The peritoneal solute transfer rate (PSTR) characterizes peritoneal ultrafiltration and solute transfer. However, the most appropriate recipients of iPD have not been identified. Therefore, we hypothesized that patients with different PSTRs would experience different clinical benefits of iPD therapy. Methods: We studied patients with RKF who initiated continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) at our center. The enrolled patients were allocated to fast and nonfast PSTR groups, and then to iPD or full-dose PD. To mitigate the influence of confounding factors, propensity score matching was employed. The clinical outcomes associated with iPD and full-dose PD in the fast and nonfast PSTR groups were compared. Results: A total of 974 patients on CAPD were enrolled. The median duration of maintenance using iPD for the nonfast PSTR group was longer than that for the fast PSTR group (21.0 vs. 15.6 months, Conclusion: Patients who show nonfast PSTR maintain iPD longer and experience superior clinical benefits compared with those who undergo fast PSTR. Therefore, patients who experience nonfast PSTR may be more suitable for iPD therapy than those who experience fast PSTR.
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.