Objective. This meta-analysis is aimed at systematically assessing the efficacy and prognosis of hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Methods. China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies to evaluate the two different dialysis methods for ESRD. The search time was set from 2010 to 2021. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata16.0. The treatment group received PD, while the control group was given HD. Results. Out of 317 articles initially retrieved, 14 studies were finally included in our meta-analysis. The analysis results showed that there was no marked difference in the 1-year survival rate between the two groups ( RR = 1.05 ; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10; P > 0.05 ), but the incidence rate of adverse reactions in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group ( RR = 0.51 ; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.70; P < 0.05 ). In addition, PD and HD treatments caused significant decreases in serum creatinine levels (PD, SMD = − 2.91 ; 95% CI: -3.79, -2.04; P < 0.05 ; HD, SMD = − 3.09 ; 95% CI: -4.01, -2.16; P < 0.05 ) and blood urea nitrogen levels (PD, SMD = − 2.54 , 95% CI: -3.37, -1.72, P < 0.05 ; HD, SMD = − 2.62 , 95% CI: -3.47, -1.77, P < 0.05 ); however, there was no significant statistical difference in posttreatment levels of serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the hemoglobin ( SMD = 0.56 , 95% CI: 0.07, 1.06; P < 0.05 ) and serum albumin ( SMD = 1.11 , 95% CI: 0.46, 1.76, P < 0.05 ) levels were significantly increased in the treatment group after treatment. Conclusion. In summary, both PD and HD can improve renal function in uremic patients, but PD is superior to HD in reducing the incidence of adverse reactions, improving the nutritional status, and therefore improving the quality of life of patients.

Objective: Seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is a common disease of childhood and is characterized by type 2 inflammation, bothersome symptoms, and impaired quality of life (QoL). Intranasal corticosteroids are effective medications in managing SAR. In addition, mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) is a well-known therapeutic option. However, the literature provided no data about the effects of MFNS in European children with SAR. Thus, this study addressed this unmet requirement. Methods: MFNS was compared to isotonic saline. Both treatments were prescribed: one drop of spray per nostril, twice a day, for 3 weeks. Nasal cytology, total symptom score (TSS), visual analogic scale concerning the parental perception of severity of symptoms, and the Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) were assessed at baseline, after 7 and 21 days, and 1 month after discontinuation. Results: MFNS significantly reduced eosinophil and mast cell counts, improved QoL, and relieved symptoms, as assessed by doctors and perceived by parents. These effects persisted over time, even after discontinuation. Both treatments were safe and well-tolerated. Conclusions: The present study documented that a 3-week MFNS treatment was able to significantly dampen type 2 inflammation, improve QoL, and reduce severity of symptoms in Italian children with SAR, and was safe.