Prevalence of peritonitis and mortality in patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) in Africa: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) is the ideal modality for renal replacement therapy in most African settings given that it is relatively cheaper than haemodialysis (HD) and does not require in-centre care. CAPD is, however, not readily utilised as it is often complicated by peritonitis leading to high rates of technique failure. The objective of this study is to assess the prevalence of CAPD-related peritonitis and all-cause mortality in patients treated with CAPD in Africa. Methods and analysis We will search PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Africa Journal Online and Google Scholar for studies conducted in Africa from 1 January 1980 to 30 June 2017 with no language restrictions. Eligible studies will include cross-sectional, prospective observational and cohort studies of patients treated with CAPD. Two authors will independently screen, select studies, extract data and conduct risk of bias assessment. Data consistently reported across studies will be pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity will be evaluated using Cochrane’s Q statistic and quantified using I 2 statistics. Graphical and formal statistical tests will be used to assess for publication bias. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be needed for this study as data used will be extracted from already published studies. Results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015) framework guided the development of this protocol. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017072966.
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 | 0.068 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".