Table 1.
Study | Study design | Dialysis modality | No. of patients | Male/female | Age (mean ± SD, y) | Follow-up (months) | NOS score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tien KJ [1] | Cohort | PD/HD | 3346 | 1398/1948 | NA | 53.2 | 7 |
22,820 | 10,784/12036 | NA | |||||
Szeto CC [11] | Cohort | CAPD | 252 | 135/117 | 59 ± 13 | 45.4 ± 26.5 | 6 |
Yu XF [27] | Cohort | CAPD | 145 | 60/85 | 62 ± 15 | 48 | 6 |
Wang IK [28] | Cohort | PD/HD | 6177 | 2665/3512 | 51.0 | 49.44 ± 34.32 | 8 |
6177 | 2726/3451 | 51.2 | 52.36 ± 37.2 | 7 | |||
Wu PP [29] | Cohort | PD/HD | 2228 | 1096/1132 | 60.29 ± 16.43 | 64.2 ± 47.04 | 7 |
8912 | 4384/4528 | 60.29 ± 16.43 | 73.68 ± 47.4 | ||||
Dong J [30] | Cohort | PD | 32 | 9/23 | 61 ± 12.5 | 32.4 (12.9–60.8) | 6 |
580 | 256/324 | 55.2 ± 15.4 | |||||
Chou CY [31] | Cohort | PD/HD | 2548 | 916/1632 | 50.2 ± 14.7 | 70 | 7 |
10,192 | 3692/6500 | 50.3 ± 14.5 | |||||
Cheng SC [32] | Cohort | CAPD | 14 | 5/9 | 46.4 ± 12.0 | 39.9 ± 28.3 | 6 |
21 | 7/14 | 42.4 ± 9.4 | 60.5 ± 37.8 | ||||
Song ZP [33] | Cohort | PD | 42 | NA | 60.2 ± 2.3 | NA | 6 |
42 | NA | 60.2 ± 2.3 | |||||
Yang G [34] | Cohort | PD | 40 | NA | 58.4 ± 4.7 | NA | 6 |
42 | NA | 58.4 ± 4.7 | |||||
Ye SH [35] | Cohort | PD | 44 | 24/20 | 60.14 ± 2.69 | NA | 6 |
44 | 25/19 | 60.78 ± 2.98 | |||||
Peng XY [36] | Cohort | CAPD | 138 | 83/55 | 57 (46–71) | NA | 7 |
69 | 38/31 | 56 (42–71) | |||||
Xia P [37] | Cohort | CAPD/APD | 442 | 228/214 | 58.4 ± 15.6 | NA | 6 |
92 | 53/39 | 56.7 ± 16.0 | NA | ||||
Fei JY [38] | Cohort | CAPD | 286 | 148/138 | 58 (13–85) | 3–120 | 6 |
Li Y [39] | Cohort | PD | 577 | 280/297 | 58.9 ± 15.5 | NA | 6 |
Abbreviation: SD standard deviation, PD Peritoneal dialysis, HD hemodialysis, CAPD continuous ambulatory PD, APD, automated PD