Prevalence and Risk Factors of Augmented Renal Clearance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kidney function assessment in the critically ill overlooks the possibility for hyperfunctioning kidneys, known as augmented renal clearance (ARC), which could contribute to therapeutic failures in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this research is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors of ARC in the critically ill. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases were searched on 27 October 2020. We included studies conducted in critically ill adults who reported the prevalence and/or risk factors of ARC. We evaluated study quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool. Case reports, reviews, editorials and commentaries were excluded. We generated a random-effects meta-analytic model using the inverse variance method and visualized the pooled estimates using forest plots. Seventy studies were included. The pooled prevalence (95% CI) was 39% (34.9-43.3). Prevalence for neuro, trauma, mixed and sepsis ICUs were 74 (55-87), 58 (48-67), 36 (31-41) and 33 (21-48), respectively. Age, male sex and trauma were associated with ARC with pooled OR (95% CI) of 0.95 (0.93-0.96), 2.36 (1.28-4.36), 2.60 (1.21-5.58), respectively. Limitations included variations in ARC definition, inclusion and exclusion criteria and studies design. In conclusion, ARC is prevalent in critically ill patients, especially those in the neurocritical care and trauma ICU population. Young age, male sex and trauma are risk factors for ARC in those with apparently normal renal function. Further research on optimal dosing of drugs in the setting of ARC is warranted. (Prospero registration: CRD42021246417).
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 | 0.024 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".