Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for the management of children on chronic dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines aim to improve the quality of care, yet for users of guidelines it is often not clear how these guidelines were developed and whether the recommendations are robust. We aimed to identify all current published guidelines for the management of children on chronic dialysis, assess the quality of their development and evaluate consistency among their recommendations. METHODS: We searched Medline (1948 to January 2012), and relevant websites of guideline development programmes. Three reviewers appraised all 17 identified guidelines with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: The guidelines were developed by five different professional associations. The overall mean AGREE II score from seven Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiatives (KDOQI) guidelines was considered sufficient (mean scores 64-75%), and from all other 10 guidelines poor (29-44%). Five out of seven KDOQI guidelines scored weak on applicability. We found important inconsistencies between recommendations concerning initiation of renal replacement therapy, management of haemoglobin level and the use of mupirocin to prevent exit-site infections. CONCLUSIONS: While the recently developed KDOQI guidelines meet the modern quality standards, advice for implementation of these recommendations is lacking. There is an urgent need for international collaboration and coordination to ensure that the management of children on chronic dialysis is informed by relevant and high-quality evidence.
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 | 0.288 | 0.680 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".