Knowledge and Practice of Incremental Hemodialysis: A Survey of Canadian Nephrologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incremental hemodialysis, a strategy to individualize dialysis prescription based on residual kidney function, may be associated with enhanced quality of life and decreased health care costs compared with conventional hemodialysis. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed practicing Canadian nephrologists to assess knowledge, perceptions, and practice pattern on the use of incremental hemodialysis. DESIGN/SETTING: We distributed a cross-sectional, web-based survey. We asked about incremental hemodialysis prescribing practices, including frequency of prescription, clinical factors used to determine suitability for treatment, and barriers to implementation. The survey was conducted from September 21 to October 30, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: We distributed the survey to practicing Canadian nephrologists identified from a private membership list of the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), as well as to nephrologists named on a publicly available national list of practicing Canadian nephrologists created from provincial College of Physician registries. These were samples of convenience. METHODS: We conducted descriptive analysis of categorical data including frequencies for nominal variables and measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion (standard deviation) for ordinal variables. We used chi-square analysis to identify association between participant and practice characteristics and their opinions and attitudes toward incremental dialysis. We used simple thematic analysis on free-text responses on questions regarding the prescription of incremental hemodialysis, focusing on age and baseline management of cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities. RESULTS: The response rate was 35% (243/691). Most (138/211, 65%) of the participants prescribed incremental hemodialysis using an individualized approach at the nephrologist's discretion. Most participants (200/203, 98%) did not report any policy for implementation. Residual urine output was identified as the most important factor for eligibility (112/172, 65%), followed by electrolyte stability (76/172, 44%) and patient goals of care (69/117, 40%). Most participants agreed that dialysis prescriptions should take residual kidney function into consideration; however, 74% of the participants disagreed with a statement that there was strong evidence supporting incremental hemodialysis. Barriers identified included patient safety, patient acceptance of dose escalation, and logistics of scheduling. Despite these barriers, 82% of participants felt that that incremental hemodialysis is feasible with their current resources and 78% agreed that with specific criteria, it is a safe option. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of our study is limited by its response rate of 35%; however, this is comparable with typical response rates seen in electronic surveys. Most participants practice in an academic setting, which may have introduced bias to the results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the perception of limited evidence and a lack of guidance on implementation, incremental hemodialysis is frequently practiced by Canadian nephrologists. Barriers to implementation were identified, highlighting the need for research to guide practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".