Table 1.
Methodological characteristics of the included studies
| Study | Country | Sample size | Study design | Exclusion criteria | Arterial/venous mapping | Median age (years) † | Male sex (%) † | Hypertension (%) † | Diabetes mellitus (%) † | Risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001; Mihmanli | Turkey | 124 | RCT | Age > 74 years, previous AVF | Both | NR | 58.3 vs. 51.9 | NR | NR | Moderate |
| 2006; Nursal | Turkey | 66 | RCT | External venous diameter < 1 mm, visible vein length < 5 cm, inadequate pulsatile force, arm edema | Both | 56.5 vs. 56.5 | 51.4 vs. 54.3 | 94.1 vs. 82.9 | 44.1 vs. 37.1 | Moderate |
| 2006; Zhang | China | 66 | RCT | NR | Both | NR | NR | NR | NR | Moderate |
| 2007; Karakayali | Turkey | 280 | Retrospective cohort | NR | Both | 52.8 vs. 46.9* | 54.6 vs. 56.3 | NR | 35 vs. 35.1 | Moderate |
| 2010; Ferring | UK | 208 | RCT | > 1 previous AVF, previous AVG | Both | 69 vs. 67 | 61.6 vs. 66.0 | 78.4 vs. 75.2 | 43.2 vs. 34.3 | Moderate |
| 2010; Kakkos | USA | 467 | Prospective cohort | NR | Both | 62 vs. 64 | 52.7 vs. 59.3 | NR | 50 vs. 45 | Serious |
| 2010; Smith | UK | 77 | RCT | Previous vascular intervention on target limb, thrombophilia | Both | 64.3 vs. 65.3 | NR | 63.8 vs. 57.4 | 31.9 vs. 31.9 | Moderate |
| 2013; Ilhan | Turkey | 118 | Retrospective cohort | Central vein stenosis, outflow vein occlusion, arm edema | Both | 56.4 vs. 54.5 | 57.1 vs. 57.9 | 50.7 vs. 44.7 | 38 vs. 34.2 | Moderate |
| 2016; Kim | South Korea | 469 | Retrospective cohort | Central vein stenosis, outflow vein occlusion | Both | 55.6 vs. 55.8 | 52.5 vs. 65.2* | 85.6 vs. 90.1 | 60.2 vs. 43.9* | Moderate |
| 2016; Martinez | Spain | 81 | Retrospective cohort | Previous AVF in same extremity | Both | 68.3 vs. 64.8 | 67 vs. 60 | 90 vs. 86 | 64 vs. 47 | Moderate |
| 2016; Mat Said | Malaysia | 158 | Prospective cohort | Previous AVG, AVF re-intervention | Both | 52.9 vs. 52.5 | 45.5 vs. 57 | 91.1 vs. 87.3 | 59.5 vs. 55.7 | Moderate |
| 2016; Giannikouris | Italy | 102 | Retrospective cohort | Non-diabetic patients, previous AVF/AVG | Both | 65 vs. 69 | 64.7 vs. 70.6 | NR | NR | Moderate |
| 2018; Hossain | Canada | 316 | Retrospective cohort | Loop AVG, AVF for plasmapheresis | Venous | 59 vs. 60 | 73 vs. 71 | 88 vs. 90 | 48 vs. 57 | Moderate |
| 2018; Kim | South Korea | 250 | Retrospective cohort | Arterial stenosis/occlusion | Both | 56.3 vs. 56.9 | 62.7 vs. 66.1 | 81 vs. 69.4* | 62.7 vs. 54.8 | Moderate |
| 2019; Györi | Austria | 331 | Retrospective cohort | NR | Both | 60.7 vs. 58.7 | 70.2 vs. 58.1* | 65.8 vs. 73.7 | 22.8 vs. 31.3 | Serious |
| 2019; Torres | Spain | 178 | Prospective cohort | Unavailable ultrasound, AVF site indicated by clinical events | Both | 64 vs. 68.4* | 63 vs. 61 | 92 vs. 92 | 55 vs. 63 | Serious |
| 2021; Lopes | Brazil | 206 | RCT | Central vein stenosis, arterial stenosis/occlusion | Both | 56 vs. 57.5 | 65 vs. 71 | 46.5 vs. 53.5 | 40.4 vs. 39.5 | Moderate |
| 2022; Tuan Vo | Vietnam | 158 | Retrospective cohort | No start of hemodialysis | Both | 54.1 vs. 55.4 | 43 vs. 32.9 | 88.6 vs. 88.6 | 36.7 vs. 29.1 | Low |
NR not reported, RCT randomized controlled trial, AVF arteriovenous fistula, AVG arteriovenous graft
†Comparisons of routine ultrasound group vs. physical examination group
*p value < 0.05