Influence of peritoneal dialysis catheter type on complications and long-term outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal type of peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC). We compared the outcomes of PDCs according to the number of cuffs, intercuff and intraperitoneal segment shape, and presence of a weighted tip. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases (end-of-search date: October 16th, 2019). We included studies comparing double-cuff vs. single-cuff, swan-neck vs. straight-neck, coiled-tip vs. straight-tip, and weighted vs. non-weighted PDCs for the outcomes of interest. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies were identified, of which 20 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 18 were observational studies. No statistically significant differences were detected between double-cuff vs. single-cuff, swan-neck vs. straight-neck, and coiled-tip vs. straight tip PDCs in any of the outcomes of interest. Weighted catheters were associated with significantly lower rates of tunnel infection (relative risk [RR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.95, p = 0.03), migration (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.16, p < 0.001), drainage failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.96, p = 0.03), cuff extrusion (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.74, p < 0.001), and complication-related removal (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44-0.64, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Among the different types of PDCs, weighted catheters result in lower complication rates and superior long-term outcomes compared to non-weighted catheters. Other aspects of the catheter design do not significantly affect PDC outcomes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020158177.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".