Multidisciplinary Chronic Kidney Disease Clinic Practices: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinics improve patient outcomes but their optimal design is unclear. Objective: To perform a scoping review to identify and describe current practices (structure, function) associated with multidisciplinary CKD clinics. Design: Scoping review. Setting: Databases included Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL. Patients: Patients followed in multidisciplinary CKD clinics globally. Measurements: Multidisciplinary CKD clinic composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched the literature to identify randomized controlled trials, non-randomized interventional studies, or observational studies of multidisciplinary CKD clinics defined by an outpatient setting where two or more allied health members (with or without a nephrologist) provided longitudinal care to 50 or more adult or pediatric patients with CKD. Included studies were from 2002 to present. Searches were completed on August 10, 2018. Title, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. We abstracted data from included studies to summarize multidisciplinary CKD clinic team composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and processes. Results: 40 studies (8 randomized controlled trials and 32 non-randomized interventional studies or observational studies) involving 23 230 individuals receiving multidisciplinary CKD care in 12 countries were included. Thirty-eight focused on adults (27 with CKD, 10 incident dialysis patients, one conservative therapy) while two studies focused on adolescents or children with CKD. The multidisciplinary team included a mean of 4.6 (SD 1.5) members consisting of a nephrologist, nurse, dietician, social worker, and pharmacist in 97.4%, 86.8%, 84.2%, 57.9%, and 42.1% of studies respectively. Entry criteria to multidisciplinary CKD clinics ranged from glomerular filtration rates of 20 to 70 mL/min/1.73m 2 or CKD stages 1 to 5 without any proteinuria or risk equation-based criteria. Frequency of follow-up was variable by severity of kidney disease. Team member roles and standardized operating procedures were infrequently reported. Limitations: Unstandardized definition of multidisciplinary CKD care, studies limited to CKD defined by glomerular filtration rate, and lack of representation from countries other than Canada, Taiwan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Conclusions: There is heterogeneity in multidisciplinary CKD team composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and processes with inadequate reporting of this complex intervention. Additional research is needed to determine the best model for multidisciplinary CKD clinics. Trial registration: Not applicable.
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 | 0.031 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".