3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Survival outcomes of supportive careversusdialysis therapies for elderly patients with end-stage kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis : Survival with dialysis or supportive care

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Elderly people comprise a large and growing proportion of the global dialysis population. Regional differences in rates of dialysis in the elderly suggest multiple factors influence treatment decision-making including beliefs about the relative benefits and harms of dialysis and supportive (non-dialysis) care. We therefore systematically reviewed the literature reporting survival of elderly patients treated with either treatment pathway.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for Reporting

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nephrology
                Nephrology
                Wiley
                13205358
                March 2016
                March 2016
                January 28 2016
                : 21
                : 3
                : 241-253
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The George Institute for Global Health; University of Sydney; Sydney Australia
                [2 ]Renal Department; Concord Repatriation General Hospital; Sydney Australia
                [3 ]Concord Clinical School; University of Sydney; Sydney Australia
                [4 ]Menzies School of Health Research; Charles Darwin University; Darwin Australia
                [5 ]Department of Renal Medicine; St George Hospital; Sydney Australia
                [6 ]Department of Medicine; University of New South Wales; Sydney Australia
                Article
                10.1111/nep.12586
                26265214
                aab0f27b-6c71-482c-88f8-68f5b1169cce
                © 2016

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article