MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966370947 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfz148

Identifying critically important vascular access outcomes for trials in haemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

2019· article· en· W2966370947 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea K. Viecelli, Martin Howell, Allison Tong, Armando Teixeira‐Pinto, Emma O’Lone, Angela Ju, Jonathan C. Craig, Lai Seong Hooi, Timmy Lee, Charmaine E. Lok, Kevan R. Polkinghorne, Robert R. Quinn, Tushar J. Vachharajani, Raymond Vanholder, Li Zuo, Jan H.M. Tordoir, Roberto Pecoits‐Filho, Theodore H. Yuo, Pascal Kopperschmidt, Rob Smith, Ashley Irish, Trevor A. Mori, Elaine M. Pascoe, David W. Johnson, Carmel M. Hawley

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersMedical Research CouncilRoyal Australasian College of PhysiciansCanadian Society of TransplantationKidney Health New ZealandBritish Renal SocietyKidney Foundation of CanadaCanadian Society of NephrologyKidney Health AustraliaPolycystic Kidney Disease CharityRenal Society of AustralasiaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian and New Zealand Society of NephrologyPKD Foundation
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleCompetence (human resources)Vascular accessScale (ratio)Family medicineMultinomial logistic regressionPhysical therapyHemodialysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in people on hemodialysis (HD). Cardiovascular outcomes are reported infrequently and inconsistently across trials in HD. This study aimed to identify the priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals (HPs) for CVD outcomes to be incorporated into a core outcome set reported in all HD trials. METHODS: In an international online survey, participants rated the absolute importance of 10 cardiovascular outcomes (derived from a systematic review) on a 9-point Likert scale, with 7-9 being critically important. The relative importance was determined using a best-worst scale. Likert means, medians and proportions and best-worst preference scores were calculated for each outcome. Comments were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Participants included 127 (19%) patients/caregivers and 549 (81%) HPs from 53 countries, of whom 530 (78%) completed the survey in English and 146 (22%) in Chinese. All but one cardiovascular outcome ('valve replacement') was rated as critically important (Likert 7-9) by all participants; 'sudden cardiac death', 'heart attack', 'stroke' and 'heart failure' were all rated at the top by patients/caregivers (median Likert score 9). Patients/caregivers ranked the same four outcomes as the most important outcomes with mean preference scores of 6.2 (95% confidence interval 4.8-7.5), 5.9 (4.6-7.2), 5.3 (4.0-6.6) and 4.9 (3.6-6.3), respectively. The same four outcomes were ranked most highly by HPs. We identified five themes underpinning the prioritization of outcomes: 'clinical equipoise and potential for intervention', 'specific or attributable to HD', 'severity or impact on the quality of life', 'strengthen knowledge and education', and 'inextricably linked burden and risk'. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and HPs believe that all cardiovascular outcomes are of critical importance but consistently identify sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure as the most important outcomes to be measured in all HD trials.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207