MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793076253 · doi:10.1177/2054358118760832

A Province-wide, Cross-sectional Study of Demographics and Medication Use of Patients in Hemodialysis Units Across Ontario

2018· article· en· W2793076253 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marisa Battistella, Racquel Jandoc, Jeremy Y. Ng, Eric McArthur, Amit X. Garg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisPolypharmacyPopulationCross-sectional studyDialysisEmergency medicinePillMedical prescriptionFamily medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of polypharmacy as they have the highest pill burden of all chronically ill patient populations, with an estimated average of 12 medications per day. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate prescribing patterns of outpatient medications in patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. This was done to identify potential candidate medications for future quality improvement initiations to optimize prescribing. DESIGN: We conducted a descriptive retrospective cross-sectional study in the province of Ontario, Canada, using several linked health care databases housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). SETTING: We considered outpatient medications dispensed to patients eligible for the Ontario Drug Benefit program. PATIENTS: Patients were receiving chronic in-center hemodialysis at one of the 69 facilities in the province of Ontario, Canada as of October 1, 2013. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed whether any of our 28 study medications of interest were recently dispensed (within the prior 120 days), the type of prescribing physician, and the associated medication costs. The 28 included medications of interest (ie, proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines) were selected because they may not have a true indication for dialysis patients and/or there are safety concerns with their use in this population. Results are presented as median (25th, 75th percentile). METHODS: We conducted this study at ICES according to a prespecified protocol approved by the Research Ethics Board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto, Ontario). RESULTS: A total of 3094 patients on chronic in-center hemodialysis received a study drug of interest (age: 76.5 years [SD: 7.3]), 44% women). Patients were dispensed 11 (8, 14) unique medication products with more than two-thirds of patients dispensed 9 or more different medications. The median number of annual health care visits was 7 (3-15) with more than half the cohort receiving prescriptions from 3 or more specialists. The 10 most commonly dispensed study medications cost more than 3 million dollars in direct costs in 1 year. LIMITATIONS: Our study was also subjected to some limitations of health care databases. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is frequent in in-center hemodialysis patients. To decrease polypharmacy and its associated negative outcomes, health care providers need to implement tools to optimize medication use and deprescribe medications that lack evidence for efficacy and safety in hemodialysis patients. Therefore, strategies to improve prescribing and discontinue ineffective medications warrant testing for better patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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