Changes in Peritoneal Dialysis Practices in Canada 1996 – 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Over the past decade, clinical studies and clinical practice guidelines have suggested the use of higher small solute clearance targets for patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study asks whether these recommendations have translated into changes in clinical prescription of PD. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected annually from 1996 to 1999 on all prevalent dialysis patients in 24 Canadian centers, accounting for approximately 40% of the Canadian chronic dialysis population. Approximately a third of these patients were on PD. Full details of each patient's prescription were recorded, with particular attention to dwell volumes and frequency of exchanges for continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and to total treatment volumes and day dwells for automated PD (APD). The most recent Kt/V and creatinine clearance values available were recorded for each patient and the overall results for each year were compared to present treatment recommendations. SETTING: 24 university- and community-based hospitals. RESULTS: From 1996 to 1999, the use of APD, relative to CAPD, grew from 14% to 28% of all PD patients. Among CAPD patients, the proportion using dwell volumes greater than 2 L rose from 14% to 32%, and the proportion doing more than 4 dwells per day rose from 16% to 28%. The mean daily volume of prescribed fluid for CAPD patients increased from 8.3 to 9.1 L. As a result, the proportion of patients achieving a weekly Kt/V above 2.0 rose from 54% to 72%, and those receiving a Kt/V less than 1.7 fell from 22% to 10%. For creatinine clearance, those exceeding 60 L per week rose from 63% to 73%. For APD, the mean treatment volume rose from 11.8 L in 1996 to plateau at about 13.4 L in 1998 and 1999. However, the proportion of patients receiving more than 1 day dwell grew from 31% in 1998 to 40% in 1999, and the proportion that were "day dry" fell from 25% to 17%. For APD, the proportion of patients with a Kt/V above 2.0 rose from 67% to 77%, and with a creatinine clearance above 60 L, from 62% to 70%. The proportion with no recent clearance value recorded fell during the course of the study, from 45% to 27%. CONCLUSION: There was a marked change in PD prescription practices in Canada during the second half of the 1990s. This occurred in response to clinical studies and publication of guidelines. There is room for further improvement, especially with respect to the proportion of patients that did not have regular clearance measurements made.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".