Prevalence of peritonitis and mortality in patients with ESKD treated with chronic peritoneal dialysis in Africa: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the prevalence of peritonitis and mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with chronic peritoneal dialysis (PD) in Africa. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Africa. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ESKD in Africa. INTERVENTIONS: PD in its varied forms. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: PD-related peritonitis rate (primary outcome), time-to-discontinuation of PD, mortality. DATA SOURCES: Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Africa Journal Online were systematically searched from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies conducted in Africa reporting peritonitis rate and mortality in patients treated with PD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted and synthesised the data using Microsoft Excel. The quality of included data was also assessed. RESULTS: We included 17 studies from seven African countries representing 1894 patients treated with PD. The overall median age was 41.4 years (IQR: 38.2-44.7) with a median time on PD of 18.0 months (17.0-22.6). An overall median peritonitis rate of 0.75 (0.56-2.20) episodes per patient-year (PPY) was observed and had declined with time; peritonitis rate was higher in paediatric studies than adult studies (1.78 (1.26-2.25) vs 0.63 (0.55-1.87) episodes PPY). The overall median proportion of deaths was 21.1% (16.2-25.8). Culture negative peritonitis was common in paediatric studies and studies that reported combined outcomes of continuous ambulatory PD and automated PD. Both 1-year and 2-year technique survival were low in all studies (83.6% and 53.0%, respectively) and were responsible for a high proportion of modality switch. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identifies that there is still high but declining peritonitis rates as well as low technique and patient survival in PD studies conducted in Africa. Sustained efforts should continue to mitigate factors associated with peritonitis in patients with ESKD treated with PD in Africa. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017072966.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".