MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902405697 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023306

Determining the optimal time for liberation from renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis (DOnE RRT)

2018· review· en· W2902405697 on OpenAlexaff
Abdalrhman Al Saadon, Riley Katulka, Meghan Sebastianski, Robin Featherstone, Ben Vandermeer, R. T. Noel Gibney, Oleksa Rewa, Sean M. Bagshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal replacement therapyIntensive care medicineIntensive care unitMEDLINEMeta-analysisCritically illSystematic reviewProtocol (science)Acute kidney injuryIntensive careDialysisInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a complex and expensive form of life-sustaining therapy, reserved for our most acutely ill patients. While a number of randomised trials have evaluated the optimal timing to start RRT among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), there has been a paucity of trials providing guidance on when and under what circumstances to ideally liberate a patient from RRT. We are conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify clinical and biochemical markers that predict kidney recovery and successful liberation from acute RRT among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our comprehensive search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian and independently peer-reviewed by a second librarian. We will search electronic databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Wiley Cochrane Library. Selected grey literature sources will also be searched. Our search strategies will focus on concepts related to RRT (ie, intermittent haemodialysis, slow low-efficiency dialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy), intensive care (ie, involving any ICU setting) and discontinuation of therapy (ie, either clinical, physiological and biochemical parameters of weaning acute RRT) from 1990 to October 10, 2017. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis. When deemed sufficiently clinically homogenous, and we have four or more studies reporting, sensitivities and specificities will be pooled simultaneously using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve and bivariate analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review will synthesise the literature on clinical and biochemical markers that predict liberation from RRT. Research ethics approval is not required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018074615.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.035
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.005

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 head0.314
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207