MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803791553 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfy104.sp608

SP608ANXIETY AND PAIN WITH TUNNELED DIALYSIS CATHETER INSERTION IN PATIENTS WITH END STAGE RENAL DISEASE

2018· article· en· W2803791553 on OpenAlexaff
Stewart Nadurak, Claudio Rigatto, Paul Komenda, Reid Whitlock, Sara Dunsmore, Alissa Lloyd, Krista Ryz, Seán Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsOrthopaedic Innovation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnd stage renal diseaseDialysisEnd-stage kidney diseaseKidney diseaseStage (stratigraphy)HemodialysisSurgeryCatheterInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: About 50% of hemodialysis patients require tunneled catheters for hemoaccess because a fistula is not feasible. Tunneled catheters are typically inserted with local anesthesia alone. However, conscious sedation is sometimes used, though may be associated with slightly increased cardiorespiratory risk, or require several hours of post-procedure observation in hospital. Given limited access to recovery beds, patients requesting or requiring conscious sedation are usually bridged with a non-tunneled catheter until conversion to a tunneled catheter can be booked . As there is no consensus on the benefit of conscious sedation in this setting, clinical practice varies widely. Importantly, patient preferences regarding this choice are unknown. Objectives: To assess: 1) pain and anxiety experienced by patients during tunneled catheter procedures; 2) patient preferences with respect to the time vs. discomfort trade-off inherent in the choice of using or not using conscious sedation. METHODS: Ten-item mail out questionnaire to all patients >18y who had tunneled catheter procedures between April 2016 and October 2017. Participants rated their experience of pain and anxiety from their most recent procedure on a Likert scale from ‘0’ to ‘10’. Patients were also asked which procedure they would prefer in future RESULTS: A total of 109 of 590 questionnaires were returned (18.5%). 57 patients had local freezing only, 32 had conscious sedation, and 15 didn’t remember. Pain (median = 2) and anxiety (median = 3) were low in both groups. Patients undergoing sedation experienced a higher level of pain post-procedure (median of 3 vs. 1; p = 0.014). The majority of respondents preferred one procedure with freezing only to two procedures (non-tunneled insertion, then sedation for tunneled catheter) (69% vs. 31%), or to waiting for a sedated procedure at a later date (76% vs. 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients experienced low levels of pain and anxiety regardless of procedure type. When faced with a trade-off, patients preferred a procedure that took less time even if more discomfort was involved. We conclude that local anesthesia alone can be used without significant additional distress in most patients.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207