Perioperative management for people with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis undergoing major surgery: a protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) have an increased risk of poor postoperative outcomes and a high incidence of major surgery. Despite the high burden of these combined risks, there is a paucity of evidence to support tailored perioperative strategies to manage this population. A comprehensive evidence synthesis would inform the management of these patients in the perioperative period and identify knowledge gaps. We describe a protocol for a scoping review of the literature to identify existing perioperative strategies, protocols, pathways and interventions for people with CKD G5D undergoing major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and report per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. In February 2020, we will complete our search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry for published literature from inception to present. All study types are eligible for inclusion, without language restriction. Studies reporting a perioperative intervention in adult patients with CKD G5D are eligible for inclusion. Studies in prevalent kidney transplant patients or patients with acute kidney injury, and studies that report on surgical approaches without consideration of perioperative management strategies, will be excluded. Reviewers will independently assess abstracts for all identified studies in duplicate, and again at the full-text stage. Following published literature searches, a search of the grey literature will be developed. We will extract and narratively report study, participant and intervention details. This will include a summary table outlining the strategies employed, organised into post hoc developed perioperative domains. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical considerations do not apply to this scoping review. Findings will be disseminated through relevant conference presentations and publications.
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 | 0.109 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.011 |
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".