Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of... Clinical Kidney Journal, sfx151, https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfx151 The online version has been updated to correct an error in Table 1. Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. has been changed to Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Clinical Kidney Journal Oxford University Press

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi

Download PDF
2 pages
Read Article

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/extracorporeal-shock-wave-lithotripsy-versus-flexible-ureterorenoscopy-pkxZh7N0dc
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA.
ISSN
2048-8505
eISSN
2048-8513
DOI
10.1093/ckj/sfy030
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Clinical Kidney Journal, sfx151, https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfx151 The online version has been updated to correct an error in Table 1. Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age, years (±SD) 49 (15.0) 51 (14.4) 0.124 50 (15.0) 51 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI, kg/m2 (±SD) 27 (4.75) 27 (4.64) 0.596 27 (4.4) 27 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones (%) <0.001 0.722  1 49 51 57 58  2 15 25 26 22  3 7 13 11 11  >3 4 11 5 9 Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. has been changed to Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. Table 1. Patient characteristics of all patients and the propensity score-matched cohort All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) All (n = 1282) Propensity score 2:1 matched (n = 735) ESWL URS P-value ESWL URS P-value Number of patients (%) 999 (78) 283 (22) 490 (67) 245 (33) Age (±SD) 49.4 (15.0) 50.9 (14.4) 0.124 50.1 (15.0) 50.7 (14.2) 0.685 Female (%) 274 (27.4) 74 (26.1) 0.669 126 (25.7) 71 (29.0) 0.346 Male (%) 725 (72.6) 209 (73.9) 364 (74.3) 174 (71.0) BMI (±SD) 26.74 (4.75) 26.56 (4.64) 0.596 26.6 (4.4) 26.7 (4.9) 0.790 Size of biggest stone, in mm (IQR) 9 (7–11) 8 (6–11) <0.001 8 (6–10) 8 (6–12) 0.988 Number of stones  1 stone 74.8% 50.7% <0.001 57.0% 57.6% 0.722  2 stones 15.1% 25.3% 26.3% 22.2%  3 stones 6.6% 13.3% 11.3% 11.1%  >3 stones 3.5% 10.7% 5.4% 9.1% Complications (%)  Clavien II 24 (2.4) 20 (7.1) <0.001 17 (3.5) 17 (6.9) <0.001  Clavien IIIa 8 (0.8) 0 (0) 0.21 3 (0.6) 0 (0)  Clavien IIIb 5 (0.5) 1 (0.4) 0.30 3 (0.6) 1 (0.4)  Clavien IV 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Bold P-values indicate statistical significance. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

Journal

Clinical Kidney Journal – Oxford University Press

Published: Apr 1, 2019

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.

Try 2 weeks free now

DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

or browse the journals available

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$499/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

Sign up
for free
Start 14 day
Free Trial