MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112632404 · doi:10.1186/s13018-020-02117-3

Comparison of total joint arthroplasty outcomes between renal transplant patients and dialysis patients—a meta-analysis and systematic review

2020· review· en· W3112632404 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiayi Li, Mingyang Li, Bo-qiang Peng, Rong Luo, Quan Chen, Xin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeriprostheticDialysisMeta-analysisInternal medicineTransplantationEnd stage renal diseaseRelative riskHemodialysisAdverse effectArthroplastySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are at an increased risk of needing total joint arthroplasty (TJA); however, both dialysis and renal transplantation might be potential predictors of adverse TJA outcomes. For dialysis patients, the high risk of blood-borne infection and impaired muscular skeletal function are threats to implants’ survival, while for renal transplant patients, immunosuppression therapy is also a concern. There is still no high-level evidence in the published literature that has determined the best timing of TJA for ESRD patients. Methods A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to November 2019) was performed to collect studies comparing TJA outcomes between renal transplant and dialysis patients. Two reviewers independently conducted literature screening and quality assessments with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). After the data were extracted, statistical analyses were performed. Results Compared with the dialysis group, a lower risk of mortality (RR = 0.56, Cl = [0.42, 0.73], P < 0.01, I 2 = 49%) and revision (RR = 0.42, CI = [0.30, 0.59], P < 0.01, I 2 = 43%) was detected in the renal transplant group. Different results of periprosthetic joint infection were shown in subgroups with different sample sizes. There was no significant difference in periprosthetic joint infection in the small-sample-size subgroup, while in the large-sample-size subgroup, renal transplant patients had significantly less risk (RR = 0.19, CI = [0.13, 0.23], P < 0.01, I 2 = 0%). For dislocation, venous thromboembolic disease, and overall complications, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion Total joint arthroplasty has better safety and outcomes in renal transplant patients than in dialysis patients. Therefore, delaying total joint arthroplasty in dialysis patients until renal transplantation has been performed would be a desirable option. The controversy among different studies might be partially accounted for that quite a few studies have a relatively small sample size to detect the difference between renal transplant patients and dialysis patients.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207