Impact of dialysis modality on survival after kidney transplant failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We reviewed evidence on survival of dialysis after graft failure (DAGF) patients based on the selected dialysis modality (peritoneal dialysis [PD] vs hemodialysis[HD]). Methods: PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for all type of studies comparing PD with HD in DAGF patients and reporting survival rates, technique survival or complications. The last date of the search was May 5, 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. We extracted both crude and multivariable-adjusted data from the studies for the meta-analysis which were pooled as odds ratio (OR) and Hazard ratios (HR) respectively. Outcomes were assessed at the longest follow-up of the included studies. Results: Seven studies were included comparing 2494 patients on PD and 4041 patients on HD. Meta-analysis of crude data showed that mortality rates did not differ between PD and HD in patients receiving DAGF (OR: 0.98 95% CI: 0.76, 1.27 I2=50%). Meta-analysis of adjusted data also showed that the dialysis modality (PD or HD) had no impact on survival rates in patients receiving DAGF (HR: 0.93 95% CI: 0.73, 1.18 I2=50%). Sensitivity analysis did not change the significance of the results. Data was limited for other outcomes. Conclusions: Very-low quality evidence mostly from retrospective studies shows that dialysis modality may not impact survival rates in patients returning to DAGF. There is a need for robust randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes to provide better evidence. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.6.12079 How to cite this: Zhu N, Mei L. Impact of dialysis modality on survival after kidney transplant failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pak J Med Sci. 2025;41(6):1809-1817. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.6.12079 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".