MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549144837 · doi:10.1159/000102089

Diuretics in the Management of Acute Kidney Injury: A Multinational Survey

2007· article· en· W1549144837 on OpenAlex
Sean M. Bagshaw, Anthony Delaney, Daryl Jones, Claudio Ronco, Rinaldo Bellomo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions to nephrology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFurosemideAcute kidney injuryDiureticIntensive care medicineRenal replacement therapyNephrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diuretics are a common intervention in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, there is no information that describes the practice patterns of diuretic use by clinicians. METHODS: Multinational, multicenter survey of intensive care and nephrology clinicians that utilized an 18-question self-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: The survey generated 331 responses from 16 countries. Academic institutions comprised 77.5%, with the remaining being from metropolitan, regional or private hospitals. The use of furosemide was most common (67.1%), delivered primarily intravenously (71.9%) and by bolus dosing (43.3%). Other diuretics were infrequently used. The majority rated current serum creatinine (73.6%) and urine output (73.4%), blood pressure (59.7%), central venous pressure (65.2%) and risk of toxicity (62.4%) important when deciding on a dose. Pulmonary edema was a prime physiologic indication for diuretic use (86.3%). Diuretic use was also common with rhabdomyolysis (55.6%), major surgery (56%), and cardiogenic shock (56.2%), and sepsis (49.5%). Diuretic use was most commonly given either prior to (57.7%) or during recovery (33.9%) after renal replacement therapy (RRT). Most (76.6%) targeted a diuresis of >or=0.5-1.0 ml/kg/h. The majority did not believe that diuretics could reduce mortality (74.3%), reduce need for (50.8%) or duration of RRT (57.8%) or improve renal recovery (68.2%), however, many stated uncertainty. Most (85.1%) would be willing to participate in a randomized trial (RCT) of diuretics in AKI with 72.4% believing it ethically acceptable to allocate patients to placebo. CONCLUSION: Diuretics are frequently used in AKI. Clinicians are most familiar with furosemide given intravenously and titrated to a physiologic endpoint of urine output. Most clinicians believe an RCT on diuretic use in AKI is justified and ethical. This survey confirms clinical agreement and a need for higher quality evidence on diuretic use in AKI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it