how should we analyze and present mortality in our patients?: a multicentre gcdp experience
Clicks: 205
ID: 168089
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
205 views
49 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #28 of 68 articles by views in demiryolu mühendisliği
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Introduction: There are different strategies to analyze mortality in peritoneal dialysis (PD) with different definitions for case, event, time at risk, and statistical tests. A common method for the different registries would enable proper comparison to better understand the actual differences in mortality of our patients.
Methods: We review and describe the analysis strategies of regional, national and international registries. We include actuarial survival, Kaplan–Meier (KM) and competitive risk (CR) analyses. We apply different approaches to the same database (GCDP), which show apparent differences with each method.
Results: A total of 1890 incident patients in PD from 2003 to 2013 were included (55 years; men 64.2%), with initial RRF of 7 ml/min; 25% had diabetes and a Charlson index of 3 [2–4]; 261 patients died, 380 changed to haemodialysis (HD) and 682 received a transplant. Annual mortality rates varied up to 20% in relative numbers (6.4 vs. 5.2%) depending on the system applied. The estimated probability of mortality measured by CR progressively differs from the KM over the years: 3.6 vs. 4.0% the first year, then 9.0 vs. 11.9%, 15.6 vs. 28.3%, and 18.5 vs. 43.3% the following years.
Conclusions: Although each method may be correct in themselves and express different approaches, the final impression left on the reader is a number that under/overestimates mortality. The CR model expresses better the reality of PD, where the number of patients losing follow-up (transplant, transfer to HD) it is 4 times more than deceased patients and only a quarter remain on PD at the end of follow up.
| Reference Key |
janeiro2016nefrologahow
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Darío Janeiro;José Portolés;Paula Lopez-Sanchez;Fernando Tornero;Carmen Felipe;Inés Castellano;Maite Rivera;Jeanette Fernandez-Cusicanqui;Antonio Cirugeda;María José Fernandez-Reyes;José Ramón Rodriguez-Palomares;María Auxiliadora Bajo;Guadalupe Caparrós;Alberto Ortiz |
| Journal | demiryolu mühendisliği |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.1016/j.nefroe.2016.03.005
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.