Outcome measures for technique survival reported in peritoneal dialysis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) technique survival is an important outcome for patients, caregivers and health professionals, however, the definition and measures used for technique survival vary. We aimed to assess the scope and consistency of definitions and measures used for technique survival in studies of patients receiving PD. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomised controlled studies (RCTs) conducted in patients receiving PD reporting technique survival as an outcome between database inception and December 2019. The definition and measures used were extracted and independently assessed by two reviewers. RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs with a total of 3645 participants (41-371 per trial) and follow up ranging from 6 weeks to 4 years. Terminology used included 'technique survival' (10 studies), 'transfer to haemodialysis (HD)' (8 studies) and 'technique failure' (7 studies) with 17 different definitions. In seven studies, it was unclear whether the definition included transfer to HD, death or transplantation and eight studies reported 'transfer to HD' without further definition regarding duration or other events. Of those remaining, five studies included death in their definition of a technique event, whereas death was censored in the other five. The duration of HD necessary to qualify as an event was reported in only four (16%) studies. Of the 14 studies reporting causes of an event, all used a different list of causes. CONCLUSION: There is substantial heterogeneity in how PD technique survival is defined and measured, likely contributing to considerable variability in reported rates. Standardised measures for reporting technique survival in PD studies are required to improve comparability.
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 | 0.034 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".