Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Propensity-Matched Mortality Comparison of Incident Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

Open access
Weinhandl, Eric D., Foley, Robert N., Gilbertson, David T., Arneson, Thomas J., Snyder, Jon J., Collins, Allan J.·2010·Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract

Contemporary comparisons of mortality in matched hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients are lacking. We aimed to compare survival of incident hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients by intention-to-treat analysis in a matched-pair cohort and in subsets defined by age, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. We matched 6337 patient pairs from a retrospective cohort of 98,875 adults who initiated dialysis in 2003 in the United States. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis of survival from day 0, cumulative survival was higher for peritoneal dialysis patients than for hemodialysis patients (hazard ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.00, P = 0.04). Cumulative survival probabilities for peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis were 85.8% versus 80.7% (P < 0.01), 71.1% versus 68.0% (P < 0.01), 58.1% versus 56.7% (P = 0.25), and 48.4% versus 47.3% (P = 0.50) at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively. Peritoneal dialysis was associated with improved survival compared with hemodialysis among subgroups with age <65 years, no cardiovascular disease, and no diabetes. In a sensitivity analysis of survival from 90 days after initiation, we did not detect a difference in survival between modalities overall (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16), but hemodialysis was associated with improved survival among subgroups with cardiovascular disease and diabetes. In conclusion, despite hazard ratio heterogeneity across patient subgroups and nonconstant hazard ratios during the follow-up period, the overall intention-to-treat mortality risk after dialysis initiation was 8% lower for peritoneal dialysis than for matched hemodialysis patients. These data suggest that increased use of peritoneal dialysis may benefit incident ESRD patients.

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 · 10.1681/asn.2009060635

Cites

26 of 26 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 26 references

Metadata

Authors
Weinhandl, E. D., Foley, R. N., Gilbertson, D. T., Arneson, T. J., Snyder, J. J., & Collins, A. J.
Venue
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2010-03
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
499-506
ISSN
1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123887991
Cited by
353
References
26
FWCI
23.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Propensity-Matched Mortality Comparison of Incident Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1681/asn.2009060635
The paper
Weinhandl, E. D., Foley, R. N., Gilbertson, D. T., Arneson, T. J., Snyder, J. J., & Collins, A. J. (2010). Propensity-Matched Mortality Comparison of Incident Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patients. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2009060635

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.