MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2586296761 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n7p1

Fostering safe vascular access for adolescents during hemodialysis using cushion cannulation versus common cannulation techniques

2017· article· en· W2586296761 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Orban Ragab Bayoumi Ibrahim, Sahar Mahmoud El-Khedr Abd El-Gawad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisCushionMedicineArteriovenous fistulaVascular accessDialysisPhysical therapyPain scaleSurgeryEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: Chronic hemodialysis is technically feasible in children of all ages. Vascular access is a hemodialysis patient’s lifeline, and successful cannulation is critical to the viability of the vascular access. Common and cushion cannulation techniques can be used by the nurses during cannulation of the patients. However, it is not known which approach is most effective. This study aimed to foster safe vascular access for adolescents during hemodialysis using cushion cannulation versus common cannulation techniques.Methods: Study design: A quasi-experimental study was used. Setting: The study was conducted at Hemodialysis Units affiliated to King Abdullah Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud International Foundation Dialysis Care Center at Jeddah. Subjects: A purposive sample composed of 60 adolescents undergoing hemodialysis and 60 nurses “whom providing care for those adolescents were involved in this study”. Tools: Four tools were used namely; Structured Questionnaire Sheets, Observation Sheet, Adolescents and nurses’ opinion about cushion and common cannulation techniques, and Pain Assessment Scale.Results: The majority of adolescents felt that using the cushion cannulation technique was more comfortable position. Also, most nurses mentioned that using the cushion technique improves body mechanics and promotes easy access to fistula.Conclusions: The current study concluded that, using cushion technique was associated with safe vascular access for adolescents during hemodialysis, it also stabilizes the arm and tissues and fully extension of the arm. Negative correlation was observed between cushion technique safety and numeric pain scale. Meanwhile, there was insignificant positive correlation using common cannulation technique and numeric pain scale. Recommendations: Application of the cushion technique in HD centers as part of a routine care for all patients undergoing hemodialysis therapy, and implement in-service training programs related to the cushion technique for all nurses working in Hemodialysis Units.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→