Pain resulting from arteriovenous fistulae: prevalence and impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The burden of pain from cannulation of arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and the impact it has on quality of life is poorly described in the literature. METHODOLOGY: A pain score questionnaire was employed for all patients in the West of Scotland dialyzing via AVF (n = 461). Pain was assessed using visual analogue score (VAS) and McGill pain score. Patients with severe pain (VAS > 5) were compared to those with minimal pain. RESULTS: The questionnaire as completed by 97.5% of the patients. Median VAS on cannulation was 3 (IQR 0.5 - 4.5). Of those who had completed the questionnaire, 24.4% had severe pain on cannulation and 3.2% experienced severe chronic pain. 53 patients (11.3%) cut a dialysis session short due to pain. Of the patients with severe chronic pain, 46.7% had a physical complication affecting their AVF (e.g., venous stenosis, pseudoaneurysm). Following treatment of the problem, pain improved in 71.4% and resolved completely in 14.3%. Brachiobasilic AVF was associated with a higher incidence of severe pain than either brachiocephalic or radiocephalic AVF (50%, 23.3% and 24.4% respectively; p = 0.03). There was a trend towards more severe pain with rope-ladder cannulation (27.7%) compared to button-hole cannulation (18.2%); however, this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Pain from AVF is poorly recognized and an under-reported problem. While severe pain resulting in the avoidance of dialysis is rare, it can lead to significant difficulties and ultimate abandonment of AVF. Pain is often suggestive of an underlying anatomical problem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".