OBJECTIVES

: The aim of the study was to provide support to health service providers, reimbursers, decision-makers and policy makers based on scientific evidence and to enhance scientific knowledge in this area by evaluating peritoneal dialysis therapy in a comprehensive and multi-faceted manner both in comparison with hemodialysis treatment.

METHODS

: The study includes all individuals diagnosed with renal failure. In the study period, all the treatment methods used in the treatment of renal failure were investigated in the first section of "Health Problem and Technology Usage" and the third section of "Safety" and in the fourth section of "Clinical Effectiveness". In addition, age limitations have been introduced in the lower section on indirect costs, with concrete reasons in the 5th Costs and Economic Evaluation section for possible limitations.

In the study, HTA databases, EMbase and Pubmed and ULAKBİM databases were scanned and 1864 articles were used in the study after items and quality evaluations. In addition, national data and national legislation are also used in the study.

RESULTS

: - In the treatment of Choronic Renal Failure (CRF) the patient principle and patient autonomy should be adopted first, - The treatment of patients who have been treated with dialysis treatment, except for the clinical obligation, should start with PD treatment first, - Compared with HD, PD treatment has significant prominence over HD, especially when compared with quality of life and patient's social life involvement, with the same or very similar clinical outcomes of both methods including morbidity and mortality have

CONCLUSIONS

: Clinically, the use of dialysis modalities in CRF treatment is vital and because of this reimbursement policies should be similar to the whole dialysis methods (HHD, PD and HD)