Patient-Centred Outcomes in Anaemia and Renal Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a nearly universal complication of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) in renal patients with anaemia. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to evaluate the patient-centred impact of medical therapy. Here, we describe a systematic review of studies that evaluated patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) in renal patients undergoing anaemia treatment. METHODS: We conducted a search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsychINFO, and CINAHL databases for studies published until March 2018 that investigated an intervention to treat anaemia in renal patients and used at least one PROM. We also performed a quality assessment for all included studies. Statistical analyses characterized each study, PROMs used, the quality of PCO reporting, and the association between haematological outcomes and PCOs. RESULTS: Of the 3,533 studies identified in the database search, 21 met all eligibility criteria. Fourteen (67%) of the studies were randomized-controlled trials. Most studies (81%) investigated CKD patients, 14% investigated post-renal transplant patients and 5% assessed patients with heart disease on haemodialysis. The most common anaemia intervention, used in 95% of studies, was ESAs. Forty-three percent of studies utilized one PROM, most commonly the SF-36, a measure of QOL not specifically created for use in nephrology patients. About a third of studies selectively reported PROM subscales, rather than reporting all subscales. Notable biases among included studies included lack of blinding, selective outcome reporting, and lack of power estimates for PCOs. We did not find a statistically significant association between improvements in haemoglobin and QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies employing anaemia and nephrology-specific PROMs and conducted with greater rigour, standardization in the research methods, and reporting of PCOs in renal populations will improve understanding of PCOs in this patient group and hopefully improve patient outcomes and experiences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".