MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347068555 · doi:10.1186/s40697-016-0123-8

Perceptions of Pediatric Nephrologists regarding Timing of Dialysis Initiation in Children in Canada

2016· article· en· W2347068555 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jeremy Saban, Michael Zappitelli, Susan Samuel, Manish M. Sood, R. Todd Alexander, Steven Arora, Robin L. Erickson, Kristine Kroeker, Braden Manns, Allison Dart

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of WinnipegHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of ManitobaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Kidney Disease Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
KeywordsMedicineNephrologyDialysisIntensive care medicinePerceptionFamily medicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Significant practice variation exists in Canada with respect to timing of dialysis initiation in children. In the absence of evidence to guide practice, physicians' perceptions may significantly influence decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to (1) evaluate Canadian pediatric nephrologists' perceptions regarding dialysis initiation in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and (2) determine the factors guiding practice that may contribute to practice variation across Canada. DESIGN: This study was a cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: This study was done in academic pediatric nephrology centers in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The participants of this study are pediatric nephrologists. MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: An anonymous web-based survey was administered to pediatric nephrologists in Canada to evaluate perspectives and practice patterns regarding timing of dialysis initiation. We also explored the importance of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) vs. symptoms and the role of patient and provider factors influencing decisions. RESULTS: Thirty-five nephrologists (59 %) completed the survey. Most respondents care for advanced CKD patients in a multidisciplinary clinic (86 %) and no centers have a formal policy on timing of dialysis initiation. Seventy-five percent of centers follow <20 stage 4-5 CKD patients, and 9 % follow >30 patients. Discussions about dialysis initiation are generally informal (75 %) and the decision to start is made by the nephrologist (37 %) or a team (57 %). Fifty percent agreed GFR was important when deciding when to initiate dialysis, 41 % were neutral, and 9 % disagreed. Variability exists in the threshold that nephrologists considered early (vs. late) dialysis initiation: >20 (21 %), >15 (38 %), >12 (26 %), and >10 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (12 %). Practitioners however typically start dialysis in asymptomatic patients at eGFRs of 7-9 (9 %), 10-11 (41 %), 12-14 (38 %), and 15-19 (6 %) ml/min/1.73 m(2). Patient factors important in the decision to start dialysis for >90 % of nephrologists were fatigue, >10 % weight loss, nausea, increasing missed school, and awaiting a pre-emptive transplant. Age was only a factor for 56 %. LIMITATIONS: This study has a 59 % response rate. CONCLUSIONS: Variability exists in Canada regarding the importance and threshold of eGFR guiding the decision as to when to start dialysis in children, whereas patient symptoms are almost universally important to pediatric nephrologists' decision-making. Additional studies evaluating outcomes of children starting dialysis earlier vs. later are needed to standardize decision-making and care for children with kidney failure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207