The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Daily Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Several studies have reported improved outcomes with daily hemodialysis (DHD), but the strength of this evidence has not been evaluated. The published evidence on DHD was synthesized and its quality rated to inform need and sample size calculations for a randomized trial. Citations were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE using validated search strategies. Dialysis journals that were not indexed and bibliographies of relevant articles were hand-searched. Two authors reviewed all citations. Articles that reported original data on five or more adults who were receiving DHD (1.5 to 3 h, 5 to 7 d/wk) for > or = 3 mo were included. Twenty-five articles reporting 14 unique populations with 268 patients (five to 72 per study) met inclusion criteria. Of the 14 cohorts, 13 were studied with an observational design, 10 were studied prospectively, and four had parallel control groups. Mean age ranged form 41 to 64 yr, mean time on dialysis was 2 to 11 yr, 0 to 28% of patients had diabetes, > 90% had arteriovenous fistulae, and > 50% were dialyzed at home. Most data were described at < or = 12 mo of follow-up. Outcomes included quality of life, cardiovascular disease, erythropoiesis, nutritional status, hospitalizations, and vascular access failures. Reporting was too heterogeneous to allow pooling of data. Ten of 11 studies suggested improvements in blood pressure; findings for other outcomes varied. Discontinuation of DHD occurred in 0 to 57% in-center and 0 to 15% home patients. Studies of DHD are limited by small sample size, nonideal control groups, selection and dropout biases, and paucity of data on potential risks. Randomized trials with adequate statistical power are required to establish the efficacy and the safety of DHD.
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
Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.3109/07853890109002092 · Cited by 751 · cited 1×
“The HUI-3 is also a widely used instrument that assesses utility ( 78 ).”
Background
Cited by
Guidelines for the management of chronic kidney disease
Levin, A., Hemmelgarn, B., Culleton, B., Tobe, S., McFarlane, P., Ruzicka, M., Burns, K., Manns, B., White, C., Madore, F., et al. (2008) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.080351 · Cited by 420
Self-citationJowsey, T., McRae, I., Gillespie, J., Banfield, M., & Yen, L. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-374 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Suri, R. S., Nesrallah, G. E., Mainra, R., Garg, A. X., Lindsay, R. M., Greene, T., & Daugirdas, J. T.
- Venue
- Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-42
- ISSN
- 1555-9041 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2135288096
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.22
- 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: Daily Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2215/cjn.00340705
- The paper
- Suri, R. S., Nesrallah, G. E., Mainra, R., Garg, A. X., Lindsay, R. M., Greene, T., & Daugirdas, J. T. (2006). Daily Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.2215/cjn.00340705
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.