Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 631

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 205 of the 205 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes

Open access
Bello, Aminu K., Okpechi, Ikechi G., Osman, Mohamed A., Cho, Yeoungjee, Htay, Htay, Jha, Vivekanand, Wainstein, Marina, Johnson, David W.·2022·Nature Reviews Nephrology
DOI 10.1038/s41581-022-00542-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Haemodialysis (HD) is the commonest form of kidney replacement therapy in the world, accounting for approximately 69% of all kidney replacement therapy and 89% of all dialysis. Over the last six decades since the inception of HD, dialysis technology and patient access to the therapy have advanced considerably, particularly in high-income countries. However, HD availability, accessibility, cost and outcomes vary widely across the world and, overall, the rates of impaired quality of life, morbidity and mortality are high. Cardiovascular disease affects more than two-thirds of people receiving HD, is the major cause of morbidity and accounts for almost 50% of mortality. In addition, patients on HD have high symptom loads and are often under considerable financial strain. Despite the many advances in HD technology and delivery systems that have been achieved since the treatment was first developed, poor outcomes among patients receiving HD remain a major public health concern. Understanding the epidemiology of HD outcomes, why they might vary across different populations and how they might be improved is therefore crucial, although this goal is hampered by the considerable heterogeneity in the monitoring and reporting of these outcomes across settings. This Review examines the epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes — clinical, patient-reported and surrogate outcomes — across world regions and populations, including vulnerable individuals. The authors also discuss the current status of monitoring and reporting of haemodialysis outcomes and potential strategies for improvement.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41581-022-00542-7

Cites

205 of 205 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 205 references

Cited by

See all 631

Metadata

Authors
Bello, A. K., Okpechi, I. G., Osman, M. A., Cho, Y., Htay, H., Jha, V., Wainstein, M., & Johnson, D. W.
Venue
Nature Reviews Nephrology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-02-22
Volume
18
Issue
6
Pages
378-395
ISSN
  • 1745-8323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5061
  • 1759-507X
DOI
10.1038/s41581-022-00542-7
OpenAlex
W4213281001
Cited by
631
References
205
FWCI
24.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41581-022-00542-7
The paper
Bello, A. K., Okpechi, I. G., Osman, M. A., Cho, Y., Htay, H., Jha, V., Wainstein, M., & Johnson, D. W. (2022). Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes. Nature Reviews Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-022-00542-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.