Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Frequent hemodialysis versus standard hemodialysis for people with kidney failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Patrizia Natale ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Patrizia Natale, Suetonia C. Green

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area (DIMEPRE-J) University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy, Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy

    ⨯
  • Suetonia C. Green ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Patrizia Natale, Suetonia C. Green

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand

    ⨯
  • Matthias Rose,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (CPCOR), Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    ⨯
  • Michiel L. Bots,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Peter J. Blankestijn,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Robin W. M. Vernooij,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Karin Gerittsen,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    ⨯
  • Mark Woodward,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia, The George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Carinna Hockham,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation The George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Krister Cromm,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (CPCOR), Charité –Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH, Global Medical Office, Bad Homburg v.d.H, Germany

    ⨯
  • Claudia Barth,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation B. Braun Avitum AG, Medical Scientific Affairs, Melsungen, Germany

    ⨯
  • Andrew Davenport,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Nephrology, University College of London, London, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Jörgen Hegbrant,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Nephrology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Pantelis Sarafidis,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Nephrology, Aristotle University, Hippokration Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece

    ⨯
  • Partha Das,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    ⨯
  • Christoph Wanner,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Clinical Research and Epidemiology, Comprehensive Heart Failure Center, Würzburg, Germany, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Allan R. Nissenson,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations DaVita International, London, United Kingdom, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, California, Los Angeles, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Benedicte Sautenet,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department Nephrologie-Hypertension Arterielle, Dialyses, Transplantation Renale, Tours, France

    ⨯
  • Marietta Török,

    Roles Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Diaverum Renal Services Group, Budapest, Hungary

    ⨯
  •  [ ... ],
  • Giovanni Strippoli

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    gfmstrippoli@gmail.com

    Affiliations Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area (DIMEPRE-J) University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy

    ⨯
  • [ view all ]
  • [ view less ]

Correction

15 Sep 2025: Natale P, Green SC, Rose M, Bots ML, Blankestijn PJ, et al. (2025) Correction: Frequent hemodialysis versus standard hemodialysis for people with kidney failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLOS ONE 20(9): e0332338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332338 View correction

Abstract

Background

Frequent hemodialysis provided more than three times per week may lower mortality and improve health-related quality of life. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive. We evaluated the benefits and harms of frequent hemodialysis in people with kidney failure compared with standard hemodialysis.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults on hemodialysis with highly sensitive searching in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar on 3 January 2024. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We adjudicated evidence certainty using GRADE.

Results

From 11,142 unique citations, only seven studies involving 518 participants proved eligible. The effects of frequent hemodialysis on physical and mental health were imprecise due to few data. Frequent hemodialysis probably had uncertain effect on death from all cause compared with standard hemodialysis (relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.33–1.91, low certainty evidence). Data were not reported for death from cardiovascular causes, major cardiovascular events, fatigue or vascular access.

Conclusion

The evidentiary basis for frequent hemodialysis is incomplete due to clinical trials with few or no events reported for mortality and cardiovascular outcome measures and few participants in which patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life and symptoms were reported.

Citation: Natale P, Green SC, Rose M, Bots ML, Blankestijn PJ, Vernooij RWM, et al. (2024) Frequent hemodialysis versus standard hemodialysis for people with kidney failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 19(9): e0309773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309773

Editor: Mabel Aoun, Faculty of Medicine, Saint-Joseph University, LEBANON

Received: May 22, 2024; Accepted: August 19, 2024; Published: September 6, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Natale et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. All data are stored in COVIDENCE and available at https://app.covidence.org. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Kidney failure is the tenth most frequent cause of death and is estimated to become the fifth leading cause of premature death by 2040 [1]. Kidney failure requires kidney replacement therapy (KRT), including dialysis and kidney transplantation, and is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and excess health-care costs [2]. Hemodialysis is used for 90% of patients when the kidney function falls below 10% of normal in healthcare settings with access to dialysis care [3]. However, major cardiovascular events, infections, hospital admissions and impaired quality of life are severe and frequent among patients treated with hemodialysis [4]. Standard thrice-weekly hemodialysis is still associated with severe fatigue, shortness of breath, low appetite, and bodily itch [5].

The high rates of death and morbidity among people treated with standard hemodialysis for kidney failure motivates an ongoing search for effective dialysis interventions, including convective therapies, medium cut-off membrane hemodialysis, and frequent or longer hours hemodialysis. Previous randomized and observational studies have shown that frequent dialysis, conducted more often than three times a week, provides more effective removal of fluid and uremic toxins, improves cardiovascular surrogates and quality of life, but the effect on survival in individual studies has remained uncertain [6, 7]. Accordingly, frequent hemodialysis has limited uptake as since 1950 three times a week has been set as the standard. Furthermore, reimbursement of dialysis treatments is based on the standard three times weekly dialysis schedule [8].

Given the uncertain evidence for frequent hemodialysis (4 or more sessions per week), we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of frequent hemodialysis compared with standard hemodialysis in people with kidney failure.

Materials and methods

Study design

We pre-published the protocol (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3HVX5). The study was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews [9].

Search strategy and selection criteria

A highly sensitive search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the grey literature has been searched using Google Scholar from inception to 3 January 2024 without language restrictions (S1 File). The search keywords comprised “hemodialysis”; “hemodiafiltration”; “chronic kidney disease”; “kidney failure”; “end-stage kidney disease”; “frequency”; “extended”; “duration”; and “randomized controlled trial”; however, the full list of relevant keywords has been reported in the S1 File. Randomized controlled trials were eligible whether they evaluated frequent hemodialysis for treatment of kidney failure in adults on hemodialysis for at least 3 months. Frequent hemodialysis was defined as any hemodialysis schedule occurring more than three times a week, regardless of the duration of each hemodialysis session. Standard hemodialysis was defined as three times a week. We included studies of any duration. Quasi-RCTs (such as those studies in which treatment allocation was performed by alternation, use of alternate medical records, or days of the week) were excluded. Crossover studies and cluster randomized controlled trials were eligible. Two trained reviewers (PN and SG) screened the title and abstracts of retrieved citations to identify potentially eligible trials. Citation screening was conducted in Covidence [10]. Full texts were reviewed by PN and SG and eligible studies were included.

Data extraction

Two trained reviewers (PN and SG) extracted data from each eligible study using a peer-reviewed standardized extraction form in Covidence. Data extraction included study characteristics (year of publication, country, type of study design, duration, funding, trial registration number), participant characteristics (setting, sample size, age, sex, years on dialysis, comorbidities), description of the intervention (type of hemodialysis, frequency, hours per session), and outcomes. For studies published in multiple articles, we included data from all sources, and extracted the most complete data and the longest follow-up. Data from trial registries were also extracted when available. The primary review outcome was health-related quality of life (including physical or mental health). The secondary outcomes were death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes, major adverse cardiovascular events, dialysis vascular access interventions, fatigue, serious adverse events, and adverse events of special interest and included the highest priority outcomes identified by the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology Haemodialysis initiative [11]. We planned to report the following outcomes in the Summary of Findings (SoF) Table: physical health, mental health, death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes, major cardiovascular events, fatigue, and dialysis vascular access interventions. No unpublished studies have been identified. Missing data were handled either contacting authors or calculation mean and standsrd deviations from the row data as possible. No further data have been obtained from other sources.

Risks of bias and quality assessment

Two reviewers (PN and SG) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [12]. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to appraise the certainty of evidence, assessed as high, moderate, low, or very low certainty evidence [13].

Statistical analysis

Treatment effects were estimated by random-effects pairwise meta-analysis. We estimated effects as a relative risk (RR) for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes reported on the same scale, or standardized mean difference (SMD) when continuous outcomes were reported on different scales, together with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). SMDs were estimated by Hedges’ g [14]. Studies analyzing change scores were reported separately in meta-analyses from those reporting endpoint outcome data. Heterogeneity was first assessed with visual inspection of the forest plot. The I2-statistic was also used to quantify the percentage of variation across the studies that was due to heterogeneity. We used the following guide for interpretation of I2 values: 0% to 39%: not important heterogeneity; 40 to 79%: moderate heterogeneity; and 80% to 100%: substantial heterogeneity. We examined for evidence of small study effects by assessment of asymmetry in funnel plots if at least 10 studies were reported for the selected outcome.

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Subgroup analyses to explore potential sources of heterogeneity by population characteristics (age 65 years or older and younger than 65 years, and diabetes), and setting of hemodialysis (home and facility) and sensitivity analyses (excluding unpublished studies, taking into account the risk of bias, excluding large studies to establish how much they dominate the results) were not performed.

Results

The electronic search retrieved 11,142 unique citations (Fig 1). The full list of citations and reasons for exclusion are available in COVIDENCE at https://app.covidence.org/reviews/336588. Overall, seven trials involving 518 participants proved eligible for inclusion (S1 File). Publication ranged from 2001 to 2022. The trial mean age ranged from 48.9 to 64.1 years, and the proportion of men ranged from 33.3% to 69%. The median trial follow-up duration was 6 months. Frequent hemodialysis was prescribed between five and seven days a week, with variable session duration. Dialysis vintage was inconsistently reported. Four studies received support from government only and in the remaining studies there was no information on the source of funding. Trial inclusion criteria and dialysis prescriptions are described in the S1 File. Three studies were parallel group and four studies were crossover design. The individual study risk of bias is shown in the S1 File. Four studies were adjudicated as at low risk of bias overall, with one study identified as having some concerns related to risk of bias, due to the period or carry-over effects, measurement of outcomes, and selection of the reported results.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flow chart.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309773.g001

Outcomes

Two trials including 332 participants reported the primary review outcomes of physical health and mental health (Tables 1 and 2 and in the S1 File). Instruments used to measure physical health and mental health were reported in the S1 File.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Summary of findings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309773.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Physical health and mental health outcomes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309773.t002

Due to differences in measurement tools and imprecision in the results, the evidence for effects of frequent hemodialysis on physical health was of low certainty. Data for mental health, depression, and sleep quality were limited. There was no evidence that, compared to standard hemodialysis, frequent hemodialysis had any clinically important effects on physical or mental health. Frequent hemodialysis may have uncertain effects on death from all cause compared with standard hemodialysis (relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–1.91, low certainty evidence) (S1 File), or need to access intervention. Data were not available for the outcomes of death from cardiovascular causes, or major cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral arterial events.

Discussion

Our review showed that the evidence of the effects of frequent hemodialysis in people with kidney failure is still limited. The current state of the evidence based on RCTs with short follow-up does not support neither refutes that frequent dialysis beneficially affects or harms the outcomes, such as quality of life, physical or mental health compared with standard hemodialysis. Frequent hemodialysis may have uncertain effect on death from all cause compared with standard hemodialysis, and limited or no events were reported for death from cardiovascular causes, need to access intervention, major cardiovascular events (e.g., myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral arterial events), fatigue and vascular access. Data for depression and sleep quality were sparse. Adverse events were inconsistently reported. Overall, clinical trials used different measures or reported imprecision in data, leading to low or very low evidence certainty.

For our knowledge this is the first systematic review assessing the efficacy and safety of frequent hemodialysis compared with standard hemodialysis for the treatment of kidney failure in RCTs only. A previous review that included both primary studies and systematic reviews evaluated the effects of frequent hemodialysis on surrogate outcomes, showing that frequent dialysis improved blood pressure management that may potentially lead to improvement in survival, cardiovascular outcomes, and quality of life, although no outcome data were reported to support these results [22]. Our findings partly agreed with data reported in other studies based on randomized and observational studies, that showed that nocturnal hemodialysis did not have any difference in mortality, but improved quality of life compared to standard hemodialysis and this evaluation could overestimate the results due to methodological issue in the study selection [23, 24].

This review was performed using a highly sensitive search strategy including all available clinical trials. Data extraction and analysis were performed by two independent reviewers, who used the risk of bias Cochrane tool and the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. However, this study reported some limitations due to the individual studies that should be considered for interpreting our findings. Firstly, the majority of the eligible studies were not designed to report key clinical or patient-reported outcomes that could be underestimated or underreported, and cardiovascular adverse events were not reported. Secondly, clinical trials were designed to estimate the effects of surrogate outcomes, or follow-up was insufficient to address critical outcome data (including death and cardiovascular outcomes) or clearly assess whether more frequent dialysis sessions may lead to premature loss of residual renal function. Thirdly, the studies had poor methodological quality that may have reduced our certainty in the estimated treatment effects, due to the imprecision in the estimates in the small studies with short follow-up duration. Lastly, heterogeneity and publication bias could be not explored due to the limited number of studies or events.

This systematic review has shown that the effects of frequent hemodialysis compared to standard haemodialysis are uncertain on mortality, cardiovascular events, and quality of life. The benefit and harms of treatment in kidney failure are insufficient to inform practice in adults on hemodialysis. The current evidence appears to be a lower research priority and is unable to guide treatment decision-making. Future high quality and well powered RCTs should be designed and conducted to evaluate the efficacy of frequent versus standard hemodialysis for the treatment of kidney failure in long-term. It is likely that future studies could change the estimated effects of treatments for frequent or standard dialysis and should evaluate outcomes prioritized by stakeholders, including overall health-related quality of life or more specific patient-reported outcomes, such as dialysis symptoms or fatigue [25], followed by evaluation of cost for treatments in kidney failure to inform clinical practice.

References

  1. 1. Foreman KJ, Marquez N, Dolgert A, Fukutaki K, Fullman N, McGaughey M, et al. Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):2052–90. pmid:30340847
  2. 2. Bello AK, Okpechi IG, Osman MA, Cho Y, Htay H, Jha V, et al. Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2022;18(6):378–95. pmid:35194215
  3. 3. Bello A, Okpechi I, Levin A, Ye F, Saad S, Zaidi D, et al. A report by the International Society of Nephrology: An Assessment of Global Kidney Health Care Status focussing on Capacity, Availability, Accessibility, Affordability and Outcomes of Kidney Disease. Inter Soc Nephrol, Brussels, Belgium. 2023.
  4. 4. Bello AK, Levin A, Tonelli M, Okpechi IG, Feehally J, Harris D, et al. Assessment of Global Kidney Health Care Status. JAMA. 2017;317(18):1864–81. pmid:28430830
  5. 5. Murtagh FEM, Addington-Hall J, Higginson IJ. The prevalence of symptoms in End-Stage Renal Disease: A systematic review. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2007;14(1):82–99. pmid:17200048
  6. 6. Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK, Daugirdas JT, Greene T, Kusek JW, et al. Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(25):2010–9. pmid:12490682
  7. 7. Weinhandl ED, Liu J, Gilbertson DT, Arneson TJ, Collins AJ. Survival in daily home hemodialysis and matched thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(5):895–904. pmid:22362906
  8. 8. Van der Tol A, Lameire N, Morton RL, Van Biesen W, Vanholder R. An International Analysis of Dialysis Services Reimbursement. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(1):84–93. pmid:30545819
  9. 9. PRISMA. Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. http://wwwprisma-statementorg/ [last access 18 January 2024].
    • 10. Covidence systematic review software VHI, Melbourne, Australia. www.covidence.org [last access 18 January 2023].
      • 11. Tong A, Manns B, Hemmelgarn B, Wheeler DC, Evangelidis N, Tugwell P, et al. Establishing core outcome domains in hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology–Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(1):97–107. pmid:27497527
      • 12. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020 www.trainingcochrane.org/2020.
      • 13. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94. pmid:21195583
      • 14. Lin L, Aloe A. Evaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2021;40(2):403–26. pmid:33180373
      • 15. Fagugli RM, Reboldi G, Quintaliani G, Pasini P, Ciao G, Cicconi B, et al. Short daily hemodialysis: Blood pressure control and left ventricular mass reduction in hypertensive hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;38(2):371–6. pmid:11479164
      • 16. Culleton BF, Walsh M, Klarenbach SW, Mortis G, Scott-Douglas N, Quinn RR, et al. Effect of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis on left ventricular mass and quality of life. JAMA. 2007;298(11):1291.
      • 17. FHN Trial Group; Chertow GM, Levin NW, Beck GJ, Depner TA, Eggers PW, et al. In-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(24):2287–300.
        • 18. Rocco MV, Lockridge RS, Beck GJ, Eggers PW, Gassman JJ, Greene T, et al. The effects of frequent nocturnal home hemodialysis: the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Nocturnal Trial. Kidney Int. 2011;80(10):1080–91. pmid:21775973
        • 19. Di Micco L, Torraca S, Sirico ML, Tartaglia D, Di Iorio B. Daily dialysis reduces pulse wave velocity in chronic hemodialysis patients. Hypertens Res. 2012;35(5):518–22. pmid:22278627
        • 20. Zimmerman DL, Ruzicka M, Hebert P, Fergusson D, Touyz RM, Burns KD. Short daily versus conventional hemodialysis for hypertensive patients: A randomized cross-over study. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97135. pmid:24875804
        • 21. González Moya M, Molina P, Molina M, García-Valdelvira M, Vizcaíno B, Montesa Marín M, et al. Elimination of middle and large uraemic toxins in short daily home haemodialysis with low dialysate volume: A randomized crossover clinical trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2022;37(Supplement 3).
        • 22. Shafiee MA, Chamanian P, Shaker P, Shahideh Y, Broumand B. The Impact of Hemodialysis Frequency and Duration on Blood Pressure Management and Quality of Life in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients. Healthcare (Basel). 2017;5(3):52. pmid:28869490
        • 23. Liu F, Sun Y, Xu T, Sun L, Liu L, Sun W, et al. Effect of Nocturnal Hemodialysis versus Conventional Hemodialysis on End-Stage Renal Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169203. pmid:28107451
        • 24. Walsh M, Culleton B, Tonelli M, Manns B. A systematic review of the effect of nocturnal hemodialysis on blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, anemia, mineral metabolism, and health-related quality of life. Kidney Int. 2005;67(4):1500–8. pmid:15780103
        • 25. SONG initiative. Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology—Haemodialysis. https://songinitiativeorg/projects/song-hd/ [last access 22 January 2024].