Kidney outcomes after methanol and ethylene glycol poisoning: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ingestions with methanol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and isopropanol are rare yet exceedingly dangerous conditions that may require emergent management with kidney replacement therapy. Little is known regarding short- and long-term kidney outcomes post-ingestion. To comprehensively synthesize existing evidence regarding short- and long-term kidney and other outcomes of adult patients following these poisonings. We developed a search strategy in MEDLINE via OVID and then translated it into other databases including EMBASE (via OVID), PubMed, CENTRAL (via OVID). The databases were searched from their dates of inception to 29 July 2021. A grey literature search was conducted in the International Traditional Medicine Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. All interventional and observational studies and case series with ≥ five participants that reported on the outcomes of toxic alcohol (methanol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol and isopropanol) poisonings in adult patients ≥18 years old were included. Studies that reported mortality, kidney outcomes and/or complications attributed to toxic alcohol poisoning were eligible. The search strategy identified 1,221 citations. Sixty-seven studies (13 retrospective observational studies, one prospective observational study, 53 case series) met inclusion criteria (total N = 2,327 participants). No randomized controlled trials were identified per our prespecified criteria. Generally, included studies had small sample sizes (median of 27 participants) and were of low quality. Methanol and/or ethylene glycol poisoning made up 94.1% of included studies, whereas one study reported on isopropanol and none reported on propylene glycol. Results of the 13 observational studies of methanol and/or ethylene glycol poisoning were pooled for meta-analyses. The pooled in-hospital mortality estimates amongst patients with methanol and ethylene glycol poisoning were 24 and 11%, respectively. A more recent year of publication, female sex and mean age were associated with lower in-hospital mortality amongst individuals with ethylene glycol poisoning. Although hemodialysis was the most frequently employed kidney replacement therapy, the indications for initiation of this therapy were not reported in the majority of studies. At hospital discharge, kidney recovery occurred in 64.7–96.3% of patients with ethylene glycol poisoning. In studies of methanol and/or ethylene glycol poisoning, 2–3.7% of individuals required ongoing dialysis. Only one study reported post-discharge mortality. Furthermore, long-term toxic alcohol-mediated sequelae, such as visual and neurologic outcomes, were scarcely reported. Ingestions of methanol and ethylene glycol were associated with a significant short-term risk of mortality. Although a wealth of literature in the form of case reports and case series exists, high-quality evidence regarding kidney outcomes after these poisonings is lacking. We identified a paucity of standardized reporting in clinical presentations, therapeutics and outcomes amongst adults with toxic alcohol poisoning. Amongst the included studies, there was substantial heterogeneity encompassing study type, outcomes, duration of follow-up and treatment modalities. These sources of heterogeneity restricted our ability to perform comprehensive meta-analyses of all outcomes of interest. An additional limitation is the lack of studies pertaining to propylene glycol and the paucity of data on isopropanol. The indications for hemodialysis, long-term kidney recovery and long-term mortality risk vary widely in these poisonings and are inconsistently reported in the literature. This highlights the need for further research with standardized reporting of baseline kidney function, indications for initiation of kidney replacement therapy and short-term and long-term kidney outcomes. This systematic review protocol is registered at PROSPERO, CRD42018101955.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,031 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».