The Impact of Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis on Uremic Symptoms, Physical Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale & Objective Uremic symptoms and frailty in kidney failure may be driven by the accumulation of uremic toxins that are variably cleared by dialysis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of hemodiafiltration (HDF) compared to hemodialysis (HD) on uremic symptoms, physical function, and quality of life (QOL). Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting & Study Populations We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PROSPERO up to September 2024 for RCTs comparing maintenance HDF vs HD in adults with kidney failure. Selection Criteria RCTs with the following outcomes: uremic symptoms as measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), physical function, and QOL. Data Extraction Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Analytical Approach Random effects meta-analysis. Results Of 1,226 identified articles, 117 were included for full-text review, of which 24 RCTs (16 parallel, 8 crossover) met inclusion criteria. Studies were mostly from Europe or Asia and recruited a total of 2,382 participants. HDF was primarily delivered for 4 hours, 3 times weekly, in post-dilution mode (15/24 studies). The prescribed effluent dose was reported in 14 of 24 studies and ranged from 15-24 L. Uremic symptoms including cramps, fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, neuropathy, pain, itch, restless legs, and sleep disturbance were variably reported using general or disease-specific PROMs. In meta-analyses, HDF did not improve sleep, itch, pain, fatigue, or cramps compared with HD. Meta-analyses for physical function and QOL were not performed. Limitations RCTs were not representative of the general dialysis population, poor effluent dose reporting, lack of blinding, variability in PROMs and heterogeneity. Conclusions The evidence for HDF over HD for uremic symptoms and physical function remains limited due to the variability in HDF/HD prescriptions and PROMs used in clinical trials, risk of bias, and heterogeneity in treatment effects. Large, adequately powered, high-quality RCTs that use standardized, validated, reliable, and responsive PROMs are needed. Registration The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022316562) Plain-Language Summary In patients with kidney failure, uremic symptoms and frailty may be due to the accumulation of uremic toxins not cleared by traditional hemodialysis (HD). Hemodiafiltration (HDF) better clears uremic toxins than HD and may improve patient-important outcomes. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HDF to HD on uremic symptoms and physical function. We included 24 RCTs that recruited 2,382 participants in which HDF was mostly delivered for 4 hours, 3 times weekly in post-dilution mode with an effluent dose ranging from 15-24 L. Compared with HD, HDF did not improve sleep, itch, pain, fatigue, or cramps, but there was significant heterogeneity in treatment effects due to differences in patient populations, dialysis prescriptions, and patient-reported outcome measures. Large, adequately powered, high-quality RCTs that use standardized patient-reported outcome measures are needed to definitively determine if HDF improves symptoms and physical function.
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 | 0.024 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".