MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3116606527 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1266c

Effect of COVID-19 on Dialysis Practices on the Ground: Early Results from an International DOPPS Program Survey

2020· article· en· W3116606527 on OpenAlexaffabout
MT Guedes, Brian Bieber, Patricia de Sequera, Pilar Adriana Torres, G Brunori, Li Zuo, Michel Jadoul, Roberto Pecoits‐Filho, Jeffrey Perl, Bruce Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeritoneal dialysisStaffingPsychological interventionDialysisPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Emergency medicineBeijingIntensive care medicineChinaInternal medicineFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented disruption to dialysis patients care globally. Facility surveys were distributed to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) practices. Methods: Medical Director (MD) and Nurse Manager (NM) Surveys (MDS, NMS) are being distributed in May/June 2020 to 723 clinics enrolled in the Dialysis (in-center HD, DOPPS) or Peritoneal (PDOPPS) Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study in Canada, China, Japan, the United States, 7 European countries, 5 Gulf Cooperative Council countries, and China metropolitan areas (Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai). Surveys content includes the number of COVID-19 cases, testing, and clinical management, screening, infection control, staffing, patient transportation, and psychological support. Results: As of 27 May 2020, we have 80 MDS (China, Europe, US = 33, 38, 5) and 101 NMS (45, 46, 9) responses from DOPPS sites. The following percentages are presented sequentially for China, Europe, and US. Among MDs, 0%, 67%, 67% reported at least one confirmed COVID-19 case among dialysis patients, and 85%, 70%, 66% reported being on the late phase of the COVID-19 curve. 40%, 23%, 100% of MDs were more likely to recommend home dialysis; 19%, 5%, 29% reported an increase in missed dialysis treatments; 30%, 24%, 50% were more likely to prescribe potassium binders; and 75%, 68%, 43% had greater challenges obtaining vascular access interventions. Among NMs, 30%, 9%, 40% reported current limitations in access to COVID-19 testing; and 61%, 51%, 29% reported having, or risk of, shortage in staffing. Conclusions: Early results indicate many clinics in Europe and US have had COVID-19 cases, but sites in the three DOPPS-China cities have avoided COVID-19 to date. In all regions, shortages of human and medical resources were common, as were changes to dialysis delivery/practice including more skipped sessions, greater use of potassium binders, and preferentially recommending home dialysis. Over the next month, we expect hundreds more responses, and will compare approaches in PD and HD clinics. These data will inform guidance for dialysis care as the COVID-19 pandemic ensues. Funding: NIDDK Support, Commercial Support - Support for the DOPPS Program (including CKDopps, DOPPS, and PDOPPS) is provided by Amgen (founding sponsor, since 1996), Kyowa Kirin Co. (since 1999, in Japan), and Baxter Healthcare (since 2011). Additional support is provided for specific projects and/or countries by Akebia Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Bayer Yakuhin, Chugai Pharmaceutical, DialyzeDirect, Japanese Society for PD, JMS Co., Kidney Research UK, Kidney Foundation Japan, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Medice, Nikkiso Co., ONO Pharmaceutical Co., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Terumo Corporation, Torii Pharmaceutical Co., and Vifor Fresenius Renal Pharma.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→