MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2956576627 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12771

Intermittent pneumatic compression in patients with ESRD. A systematic review

2019· review· en· W2956576627 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Torres, Harry E Fuentes, Hassan Saadaldin, Juan Pablo Salazar, Luis H. Paz Rios, Rami Doukky, Peter D. Hart, Alfonso Tafur

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisRandomized controlled trialIntermittent pneumatic compressionEnd stage renal diseaseObservational studyQuality of life (healthcare)Crossover studyBlood pressureBlood volumePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSurgeryPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) experience frequent hemodialysis (HD) complications. Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a common complication presenting in approximately between 20 and 50% of HD sessions. Available interventions such as volume replacement or vasoactive medications are associated with significant side effects. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) has been proposed as a feasible intervention for the prevention of IDH, treatment of peripheral arterial disease and venous ulcers. These devices apply intermittent pressure to the legs improving arterial blood flow, mobilization of pooled blood with an increase in venous return increasing the effective circulatory volume. Our goal was to identify the published clinical evidence on whether IPC has a circulatory benefit and is it well-tolerated among patients receiving HD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify studies assessing the efficacy and safety of IPC in patients with ESRD. Our primary outcome was IDH. Secondary outcomes such as HD comfort, ultrafiltration volume, and physical activity were collected. No restrictions where used and we included all observational and interventional studies. Two reviewers performed screening and study quality assessment. FINDINGS: We included seven studies. Out of the seven studies, five addressed IDH, and the rest were included for secondary outcomes such as physical capacity and HD comfort. In one randomized crossover trial comparing exercise against IPC, 21 patients were randomized to 3 different arms (no intervention, cycling, IPC) a decrease in the rates of IDH with IPC was described (43%, 38%, and 24% respectively P = 0.014). The smaller studies corroborated these results. All studies where at high risk of bias. DISCUSSION: IPC might offer significant benefits for patients undergoing HD not limited to prevention of IDH but also improvement of hemodialysis comfort and physical capacity. However, our results should be interpreted in the context of its limitations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→