Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology—Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD): Study Protocol for Establishing a Core Outcome Set in PD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, approximately 11% of patients on dialysis receive peritoneal dialysis (PD). Whilst PD may offer more autonomy to patients compared with hemodialysis, patient and caregiver burnout, technique failure, and peritonitis remain major challenges to the success of PD. Improvements in care and outcomes are likely to be mediated by randomized trials of innovative therapies, but will be limited if the outcomes measured and reported are not important for patients and clinicians. The aim of the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD) study is to establish a set of core outcomes for trials in patients on PD based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders, so that outcomes of most relevance for decision-making can be evaluated, and that interventions can be compared reliably. METHODS: The 5 phases in the SONG-PD project are: a systematic review to identify outcomes and outcome measures that have been reported in randomized trials involving patients on PD; focus groups using nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify, rank, and describe reasons for their choice of outcomes; semi-structured key informant interviews with health professionals; a 3-round international Delphi survey involving a multi-stakeholder panel; and a consensus workshop to review and endorse the proposed set of core outcome domains for PD trials. DISCUSSION: The establishment of 3 to 5 high-priority core outcomes, to be measured and reported consistently in all trials in PD, will enable patients and clinicians to make informed decisions about the relative effectiveness of interventions, based upon outcomes of common importance.
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 | 0.101 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".