SP583VASCULAR ACCESS OUTCOMES REPORTED IN RANDOMISED TRIALS CONDUCTED IN PATIENTS REQUIRING HAEMODIALYSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Many randomised controlled trials have been performed to improve outcomes related to haemodialysis (HD) vascular access (VA). These trials can inform decision-making, provided the reported outcomes are relevant and measured consistently to allow interventions to be compared across trials. This study aimed to assess the scope and consistency of VA outcomes reported in HD trials. METHODS: All randomised controlled trials and trial protocols reporting any VA outcome in adult HD patients from January 2011 to June 2016 were identified from clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE. The frequency and characteristics of VA outcomes were analysed and classified (clinical, patient-reported, or surrogate outcome). RESULTS: From 168 relevant trials (involving 29,038 patients), 1426 measures were used to assess 23 VA outcomes. The three most commonly reported outcomes were function (136 [81%] trials), infection (63 [38%]), and maturation (31 [18%]; Figure 1). Function was measured in 489 different ways and at 46 different time points, but most frequently reported as “mean access blood flow (mL/min)” (37 [27%] trials) and “number of thromboses” (30 [22%]). Infection was assessed in 136 different ways with “number of access-related infections” being the most frequently used measure. Maturation was measured in 44 different ways, at 15 different time points, and commonly defined as fistulae with a vein diameter of 6 mm and a blood flow of >600 mL/min or a vein diameter of 4 mm and a blood flow of ≥500 mL/min. Patient-reported outcomes were measured infrequently, including pain (19 [11%] trials) and quality of life (5 [3%] trials). Few trials used standardised outcome definitions. SP583 Figure
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".