MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011417663 · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.12.003

Range and Variability of Outcomes Reported in Randomized Trials Conducted in Patients With Polycystic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3011417663 on OpenAlexaff
Bénédicte Sautenet, Yeoungjee Cho, Talia Gutman, Gopala K. Rangan, Albert Ong, Arlene B. Chapman, Curie Ahn, Helen Coolican, Juliana Tze‐Wah Kao, Kevin Fowler, Ron T. Gansevoort, Claire Geneste, Ronald D. Perrone, Tess Harris, Vicente E. Torres, York Pei, Jonathan C. Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialKidney diseasePolycystic kidney diseasePolycystic kidneyMEDLINEIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisDiseaseInternal medicineSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Trials in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) have increased, but their impact on decision making has been limited. Because heterogeneity in reported outcomes may be responsible, we assessed their range and variability in ADPKD trials. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & STUDY POPULATION: Adult participants in clinical trials in ADPKD. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We included trials that studied adults and were published in English. For trials that enrolled patients without ADPKD, only those enrolling ≥50% of participants with ADPKD were included. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted information on all discrete outcome measures, grouped them into 97 domains, and classified them into clinical, surrogate, and patient-reported categories. For each category, we choose the 3 most frequently reported domains and performed a detailed analysis of outcome measures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Frequencies and characteristics of outcome measures were described. RESULTS: Among 68 trials, 1,413 different outcome measures were reported. 97 domains were identified; 41 (42%) were surrogate, 30 (31%) were clinical, and 26 (27%) were patient reported. The 3 most frequently reported domains were in the surrogate category: kidney function (54; 79% of trials; using 46 measures), kidney and cyst volumes (43; 63% of trials; 52 measures), and blood pressure (27; 40% of trials, 30 measures); in the clinical category: infection (10; 15%; 21 measures), cardiovascular events (9; 13%; 6 measures), and kidney failure requiring kidney replacement therapy (8; 12%; 5 measures); and in the patient-reported category: pain related to ADPKD (16; 24%; 26 measures), pain for other reasons (11; 16%; 11 measures), and diarrhea/constipation/gas (10; 15%; 9 measures). LIMITATIONS: Outcome measures were assessed for only the top 3 domains in each category. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes in ADPKD trials are broad in scope and highly variable. Surrogate outcomes were most frequently reported. Patient-reported outcomes were uncommon. A consensus-based set of core outcomes meaningful to patients and clinicians is needed for future ADPKD 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 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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.020
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Kidney DiseasesSame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207