MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172037523 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-94

Does intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography cause acute kidney injury? Protocol of a systematic review of the evidence

2014· review· en· W2172037523 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jeanne Françoise Kayibanda, Swapnil Hiremath, Greg Knoll, Dean Fergusson, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Wael Shabana, Ayub Akbari

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryObservational studyAcute kidney injuryContrast (vision)Systematic reviewRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Intravenous contrastRadiologyComputed tomographySurgeryInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is a common cause of iatrogenic acute kidney injury (AKI). Most of the published estimates of AKI after contrast use originate from the cardiac catheterization literature despite contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans being the more common setting for contrast use. This systematic review aims to summarize the current evidence about (1)the risk of AKI following intravenous (IV) contrast-enhanced CT scans and(2) the risk of clinical outcomes (i.e. death, hospitalization and need for renal replacement therapy) due to IV contrast-enhanced CT scans. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic literature search for published studies will be performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and The COCHRANE Library databases. Unpublished studies will be identified by searching through grey literature. No language restriction will be applied.The review will consider all studies that have examined the association between IV contrast media and AKI. To be selected, the study should include two arms: one group of exposed patients who received IV contrast material before CT scans and one group of unexposed group who did not receive contrast material before CT scans. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts obtained from electronic databases, extract data and will assess the quality of the studies selected using the Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias' assessment tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A random-effects meta-analysis will be performed if there is no remarkable heterogeneity between studies. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide synthesis of current evidence around the effect of IV contrast material on AKI and other clinical outcomes. Results will be helpful for making evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for clinical and radiologic settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013003799.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.021
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.005

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207