Criteria for referring patients with renal disease for nephrology consultation: a review of the literature
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Referrals to nephrologists comprise not only patients with chronic kidney disease but also those with other nephrological conditions. There may be confusion about when to refer a patient to a nephrologist. We conducted a literature review to identify preexisting priority-setting, triage or referral criteria developed to guide referrals from primary care to a nephrologist. Methods: Medline and Cochrane databases were searched (1997 to 2008) using search terms: referral, consultation, triage and a list of specified nephrological conditions. Abstracts were assessed by 2 reviewers using criteria to determine relevance. Citation and hand searches were done on papers selected for review; relevant Web sites were also consulted. Two reviewers read all selected papers to determine if they met the objectives. One reviewer abstracted relevant data from each retained reference and compiled the results into a report, which was reviewed by 3 practicing nephrologists. Results: There were 18 retained papers, reports or Web sites; 4 of these were professional national guidelines. All but 1 reference cited serum creatinine or estimated glomerular filtration rate as a criterion for referral. Other referral criteria were proteinuria (8 sources), blood pressure (5 sources), electrolytes (3 sources) or hematuria (3 sources). There was inconsistency in referral recommendations. Conclusions: The differing advice identified in the literature results in confusion as to when patients should be referred to a nephrologist. Nephrologists, an already strained human resource, must prioritize requests for consultation using an undefined and no doubt inconsistent metric. Standardized, diagnosis neutral criteria would benefit both primary care providers and nephrologists. Results: There were 18 retained papers, reports or Web sites; 4 of these were professional national guidelines. All but 1 reference cited serum creatinine or estimated glomerular filtration rate as a criterion for referral. Other referral criteria were proteinuria (8 sources), blood pressure (5 sources), electrolytes (3 sources) or hematuria (3 sources). There was inconsistency in referral recommendations. Conclusions: The differing advice identified in the literature results in confusion as to when patients should be referred to a nephrologist. Nephrologists, an already strained human resource, must prioritize requests for consultation using an undefined and no doubt inconsistent metric. Standardized, diagnosis neutral criteria would benefit both primary care providers and nephrologists.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle