In Search of a Simple and Reliable Method of Measuring Intra-abdominal Pressure in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) are at increased risk of developing mechanical complications such as dialysate leaks and hernias thought to be partially related to an increase in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) secondary to dialysate in the abdomen. However, measurement of IAP requires specialized equipment that is not readily available in the home dialysis unit. OBJECTIVES: To develop a reliable method of measuring IAP in PD patients that could be easily used in the home dialysis unit. We hypothesized that the handheld Stryker pressure monitor would be suitable for this purpose via connection to the PD catheter. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Tertiary Care Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Patients who were having a PD catheter inserted via laparoscopic surgery at The Ottawa Hospital were recruited for the study. MEASUREMENTS: With the patients at end-expiration, the IAP measured with the Stryker monitor connected to the PD catheter was compared with the insufflator pressures of 15, 10, and 5 mm Hg. METHODS: Bland-Altman plots were constructed and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for each pressure. RESULTS: Twelve patients participated in the study: 9 men and 3 women. They were on average 53 ± 15 years old and 81 ± 13.4 kg. Two patients had to be excluded from the analysis due to difficulties zeroing the Stryker pressure monitor at the time of surgery. There were also rapid fluctuations in the insufflator pressure recording, creating additional challenges in comparing the 2 measurements at end-expiration. The 95% limits of agreement for the Bland-Altman plots ranged from 7.9 (@15 mm Hg) to 12.2 (@10 mm Hg). The intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability of the individual measurements ranged from 0.015 (10 mm Hg) to 0.634 (15 mm Hg). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and lack of a gold standard comparator may have affected our results. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we used the operating room insufflator as the gold standard for measuring IAP. By Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients, the pressure values obtained with the Stryker pressure monitor were not a reliable estimate of insufflator IAP especially at lower pressures. Further studies are needed to identify an ideal tool for measurement of IAP to guide PD management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".