Trends in dialysis modality choice and related patient survival in the ERA-EDTA Registry over a 20-year period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although previous studies suggest similar patient survival for peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD), PD use has decreased worldwide. We aimed to study trends in the choice of first dialysis modality and relate these to variation in patient and technique survival and kidney transplant rates in Europe over the last 20 years. METHODS: We used data from 196 076 patients within the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry who started renal replacement therapy (RRT) between 1993 and 2012. Trends in the incidence rate and prevalence on Day 91 after commencing RRT were quantified with Joinpoint regression. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for 5-year dialysis patient and technique survival were calculated using Cox regression. Analyses were repeated using propensity score matching to control for confounding by indication. RESULTS: PD prevalence dropped since 2007 and HD prevalence stabilized since 2009. Incidence rates of PD and HD decreased from 2000 and 2009, respectively, while the incidence of kidney transplantation increased from 1993 onwards. Similar 5-year patient survival for PD versus HD patients was found in 1993-97 [adjusted HR: 1.02, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.98-1.06], while survival was higher for PD patients in 2003-07 (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.95). Both PD (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-1.00) and HD technique survival (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99) improved in 2003-07 compared with 1993-97. CONCLUSIONS: Although initiating RRT on PD was associated with favourable patient survival when compared with starting on HD treatment, PD was often not selected as initial dialysis modality. Over time, we observed a significant decline in PD use and a stabilization in HD use. These observations were explained by the lower incidence rate of PD and HD and the increase in pre-emptive transplantation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".