The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relative Contribution of Residual Renal Function and Peritoneal Clearance to Adequacy of Dialysis: A Reanalysis of the CANUSA Study
Abstract
Studies of the adequacy of peritoneal dialysis and recommendations have assumed that renal and peritoneal clearances are comparable and therefore additive. The CANUSA data were reanalyzed in an effort to address this assumption. Among the 680 patients in the original CANUSA study, 601 had all of the variables of interest for this report. Adequacy of dialysis was estimated from GFR (mean of renal urea and creatinine clearance) and from peritoneal creatinine clearance. The Cox proportional-hazards model was used to evaluate the time-dependent association of these independent variables with patient survival. For each 5 L/wk per 1.73 m(2) increment in GFR, there was a 12% decrease in the relative risk (RR) of death (RR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.94) but no association with peritoneal creatinine clearance (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10). Estimates of fluid removal (24-h urine volume, net peritoneal ultrafiltration, and total fluid removal) then were added to the Cox model. For a 250-ml increment in urine volume, there was a 36% decrease in the RR of death (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.80). The association of patient survival with GFR disappeared (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.04). However, neither net peritoneal ultrafiltration nor total fluid removal was associated with patient survival. Although these results may be explained partly, statistically, by less variability in peritoneal clearance than in GFR, the latter seems to be physiologically more important than the former. The assumption of equivalence of peritoneal and renal clearances is not supported by these data. Recommendations for adequate peritoneal dialysis need to be reevaluated in light of these observations.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cox’s regression model for counting processes: A large sample study
Andersen, P. K., & Gill, R. D. (1982) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176345976 · Cited by 4,419
Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model
SCHOENFELD, D. (1982) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/69.1.239 · Cited by 3,111
Cited by
Bammens, B., Evenepoel, P., Keuleers, H., Verbeke, K., & Vanrenterghem, Y. (2006) · Kidney International · doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5000115 · Cited by 388
Jaar, B. G., Coresh, J., Plantinga, L. C., Fink, N. E., Klag, M. J., Levey, A. S., Levin, N. W., Sadler, J. H., Kliger, A., & Powe, N. R. (2005) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-143-3-200508020-00003 · Cited by 326
Li, P. K.-T., Chow, K.-M., Wong, T. Y.-H., Leung, C.-B., & Szeto, C.-C. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-139-2-200307150-00010 · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- BARGMAN, J. M., THORPE, K. E., & CHURCHILL, D. N.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2158-2162
- ISSN
- 1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105322673
- Cited by
- 918
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Relative Contribution of Residual Renal Function and Peritoneal Clearance to Adequacy of Dialysis: A Reanalysis of the CANUSA Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1681/asn.v12102158
- The paper
- BARGMAN, J. M., THORPE, K. E., & CHURCHILL, D. N. (2001). Relative Contribution of Residual Renal Function and Peritoneal Clearance to Adequacy of Dialysis: A Reanalysis of the CANUSA Study. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.v12102158
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.