MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982165344 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181d9d912

High-dose renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2010· review· en· W1982165344 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Van Wert, Jan O. Friedrich, Damon C. Scales, Ron Wald, Neill K. J. Adhikari

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRenal replacement therapyConfidence intervalDialysisRelative riskRandomized controlled trialHemodialysisAcute kidney injuryMeta-analysisInternal medicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of renal replacement therapy dose on mortality and dialysis dependence in patients with acute kidney injury. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to October 2009; PubMed "Related Articles;" bibliographies of included trials; and additional information from trial authors. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and quasi-randomized, controlled trials in adults with acute kidney injury prescribed highvs. standard-dose continuous renal replacement therapy (> or =30 mL/kg/hr vs. <30 mL/kg/hr), intermittent hemodialysis, or sustained low-efficiency dialysis (daily vs. alternate day, or by target biochemistry). DATA EXTRACTION: Three authors independently selected studies and extracted data on outcomes and study quality. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 5416 citations, 12 trials (n = 3999) met inclusion criteria. Modalities included continuous renal replacement therapy (7 trials), intermittent hemodialysis (3 trials), sustained low-efficiency dialysis (1 trial), and all three (1 trial). Study quality was moderate-high. Meta-analyses found no effect of high-dose renal replacement therapy on mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.03; 12 trials; n = 3954) or dialysis dependence among survivors (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.44; 8 trials with events; n = 1743). The effect on mortality was similar (all interaction p values were nonsignificant) in patients with sepsis (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.23; 9 trials; n = 1786) vs. without sepsis (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.05; 8 trials; n = 1955), treated exclusively with continuous renal replacement therapy (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.06; 7 trials; n = 2462) vs. other modalities alone or in combination (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 -1.21; 5 trials; n = 1492), and in trials with low (risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.09; 6 trials; n = 3475) vs. higher (risk ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.09; 6 trials; n = 479) risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury does not improve patient survival or recovery of renal function overall or in important patient subgroups, including those with sepsis.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207