MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788067661 · doi:10.2215/cjn.05390517

Safety of Intravenous Iron in Dialysis

2018· review· en· W2788067661 on OpenAlexafffund
Ingrid Hougen, David Collister, Mathieu Bourrier, Thomas W. Ferguson, Laura Hochheim, Paul Komenda, Claudio Rigatto, Navdeep Tangri

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSeven Oaks General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalHazard ratioRelative riskInternal medicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialDialysisCochrane LibraryIntravenous ironAnemiaIron deficiency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives The safety of intravenous iron dosing in dialysis is uncertain. Higher-dose intravenous iron may be associated with a higher risk of infections, cardiovascular events, hospitalizations, and mortality. This systematic review aimed to determine the safety of higher-dose versus lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron supplementation in adult patients treated with dialysis. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CINAHL from inception to January 6, 2017 for randomized, controlled trials and observational studies comparing higher-dose intravenous iron with lower-dose intravenous iron, oral iron, or no iron in patients treated with dialysis that had all-cause mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations as outcomes. Results Of the 2231 eligible studies, seven randomized, controlled trials and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria. The randomized, controlled trials showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>400 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (six studies; n =970; pooled relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 1.84; follow-up ranging from 35 days to 26 months) or infection (four studies; n =743; relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.41). The observational studies showed no association between higher-dose intravenous iron (>200 mg/mo for most studies) and mortality (eight studies; n =241,408; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.21; follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months), infection (eight studies; n =135,532; pooled hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.28), cardiovascular events (seven studies; n =135,675; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.56), or hospitalizations (five studies; n =134,324; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.19). Conclusions Higher-dose intravenous iron does not seem to be associated with higher risk of mortality, infection, cardiovascular events, or hospitalizations in adult patients on dialysis. Strength of this finding is limited by small numbers of participants and events in the randomized, controlled trials and statistical heterogeneity in observational studies.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicIron Metabolism and DisordersFrench-language works237,207