MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987371788 · doi:10.1001/jama.299.7.793

Renal replacement therapy in patients with acute renal failure: a systematic review.

2008· article· en· W1987371788 on OpenAlex
Neesh Pannu, Scott Klarenbach, Natasha Wiebe, Braden Manns, Marcello Tonelli

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

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJadad scaleRenal replacement therapyDialysisRandomized controlled trialContext (archaeology)Relative riskIntensive care medicineHemodialysisProspective cohort studyInternal medicineMEDLINEConfidence intervalCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Acute renal failure requiring dialytic support is associated with a high risk of mortality and substantial morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To summarize current evidence guiding provision of dialysis for patients with acute renal failure, to make recommendations for management, and to identify areas in which additional research is needed. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and All EBM Reviews through October 2007. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies studying dialytic support in adults with acute renal failure that reported the incidence of clinical outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, need for chronic dialysis, or development of hypotension. DATA EXTRACTION: Quality was independently assessed by 2 reviewers using the Jadad score (RCTs) and the Downs and Black checklist (cohort studies). A single reviewer extracted data, which were independently verified by a second reviewer. Results of RCTs were pooled using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 173 retrieved articles, 30 RCTs and 8 prospective cohort studies were eligible. No conclusions could be drawn about optimal indications for or timing of renal replacement. Available data comparing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) with intermittent hemodialysis demonstrated no clinically relevant difference between modalities, including for all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.23; I2 = 0%) or for the requirement for chronic dialysis treatment in survivors (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.56-1.49; I2 = 0%). For patients treated with CRRT, limited data suggest that bicarbonate may be preferable to other forms of dialysate alkali and that citrate infusion may be an alternative to systemic anticoagulation in patients at high risk of bleeding. Among patients treated with continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVHF), the risk of death was lower at doses of 35 mL/kg per hour (RR of death compared with doses of 20 mL/kg per hour, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88). The use of unsubstituted cellulosic membranes should be avoided in intermittent hemodialysis (RR of death compared with biocompatible membranes, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current data, intermittent hemodialysis and CRRT appear to lead to similar clinical outcomes for patients with ARF. If CVVHF is used, a dose of 35 mL/kg per hour should be provided. Given the paucity of good-quality evidence in this important area, additional large randomized trials are needed to evaluate clinically important outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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