Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on February 15, 2008
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2008 23(5):1770; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm903
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/5/1770    most recent
gfm903v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rabindranath, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rabindranath, K. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2008]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


Reply

Sir,

We agree with Nessim and Bargman's observation that when determining clinical outcomes with respect to peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter-related infections rates are more appropriate than relative risk, for reasons we have already stated in our paper [1]. Whilst it is encouraging to note that APD significantly reduces peritonitis rates by almost 40% according to our paper, we agree with Nessim and Bargman that this result is based mainly on the results of the trial by De Fijter et al. [2]. In the Discussion section, we clearly stated the inherent limitations of the trials (very few trials with small patient populations, variability in their design and high dropout rates) included in this review and advised caution in interpreting the results due to those limitations. Given the impact peritonitis has on clinical outcomes for PD patients, we feel the results from this review should provide the impetus for large-scale trials comparing APD and CAPD to provide us with more robust and reliable data to inform clinical practice.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

Kannaiyan S. Rabindranath

Renal Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK E-mail: ksrabi@yahoo.co.uk

References

  1. Rabindranath KS, Adams J, Ali TZ, et al. Automated vs continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2007) 22:2991–2998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. De Fijter CW, Oe LP, Nauta JJ, et al. Clinical efficacy and morbidity associated with continuous cyclic compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Ann Int Med (1994) 120:264–271.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/5/1770    most recent
gfm903v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rabindranath, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rabindranath, K. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?