MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162941379 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300727

Heart valve prosthesis selection in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2011· review· en· W2162941379 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Chan, Lina Chen, L. Mesana, Thierry Mesana, Marc Ruel

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDialysisHazard ratioOdds ratioContext (archaeology)Internal medicineCardiologyEnd stage renal diseaseSurgeryValve replacementProsthesisPopulationConfidence intervalHemodialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: There is little evidence guiding heart valve prosthesis selection in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis. OBJECTIVES: To perform: 1) a systematic review of studies examining valve replacement in patients with ESRD on dialysis; and 2) a quantitative meta-analysis comparing survival and valve-related outcomes following valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses in this population. DATA SOURCES: English studies published from 1990 onwards. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they compared bioprostheses with mechanical prostheses in patients with ESRD on dialysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted summary estimates included the hazard ratio (HR) for death, and the odds ratio (OR) for developing valve-related complications due to the use of bioprostheses versus mechanical prosthesis. RESULTS: Twelve studies published from 1997 to 2010 were included in this review, of which 9 were used in the meta-analysis. No evidence of publication bias was detected. The aortic valve was the most common valve replaced in these studies (4339/6350), although 11 of the 12 studies also included mitral or multiple valve replacements. No difference in survival was observed between valve types (bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.9, p = 0.09). However, valve replacement with bioprostheses was associated with fewer valve-related complications compared to mechanical prostheses (odds ratio 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of the published literature demonstrates no survival difference following valve replacement with either bioprostheses or mechanical prosthesis in patients with ESRD on dialysis. Bioprosthetic valve replacement was associated with fewer valve-related complications. Although this meta-analysis cannot discriminate between the sites of valve implant, these data can likely be extended to include at least aortic valve replacement.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.031
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations52
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207