MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta-Analysis: Low-Dose Dopamine Increases Urine Output but Does Not Prevent Renal Dysfunction or Death

2005· review· en· W2023893179 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectRelative riskRandomized controlled trialPlaceboInternal medicineMeta-analysisCreatinineRenal functionCochrane LibraryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surveys have documented the continued popularity of low-dose dopamine to influence renal dysfunction even though few data support it and editorials and reviews have discouraged its use. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of low-dose dopamine (< or =5 microg/kg of body weight per minute) compared with placebo or no therapy in patients with or at risk for acute renal failure. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-January 2005), EMBASE (1980-week 5, 2005), CANCERLIT (1975-2002), CINAHL (1982-January 2005), and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, fourth quarter, 2004); bibliographies of retrieved publications; and additional information from 50 trials. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently selected parallel-group randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of low-dose dopamine versus control. DATA EXTRACTION: Study methods, clinical and renal physiologic outcomes, and adverse events (arrhythmias and myocardial, limb, and cutaneous ischemia) were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: 61 trials that randomly assigned 3359 patients were identified. Meta-analyses using random-effects models showed no effect of low-dose dopamine on mortality (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19]), need for renal replacement therapy (relative risk, 0.93 [CI, 0.76 to 1.15]), or adverse events (relative risk, 1.13 [CI, 0.90 to 1.41]). Low-dose dopamine increased urine output by 24% (CI, 14% to 35%) on day 1. Improvements in serum creatinine level (4% relative decrease [CI, 1% to 7%]) and measured creatinine clearance (6% relative increase [CI, 1% to 11%]) on day 1 were clinically insignificant. There were no significant changes on days 2 and 3 of therapy. LIMITATIONS: Statistically significant between-study heterogeneity in physiologic but not clinical outcomes was unexplained by prespecified hypotheses. CONCLUSION: Low-dose dopamine offers transient improvements in renal physiology, but no good evidence shows that it offers important clinical benefits to patients with or at risk for acute renal failure.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.173 · 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