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

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.