MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237439185 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-48985/v1

Hypophosphataemia in Critically Ill Adults and Children – A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W4237439185 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annika Reintam Blaser, Jan Gunst, Carole Ichaï, Michaël P. Casaer, Carina Benstoem, Guillaume Besch, Stéphane Dauger, Sonja Fruhwald, M. Hiesmayr, Olivier Joannès-Boyau, Manu L. N. G. Malbrain, Marie‐Hélène Perez, Stefan J. Schaller, A. Man, Joel Starkopf, Kadri Tamme, Jan Wernerman, Mette M. Berger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal function and acid-base balance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illIntensive care medicineMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> <bold>Background: </bold>Phosphate is the main intracellular anion essential for numerous biological processes. Symptoms of hypophosphataemia are non-specific, yet potentially life-threatening. This systematic review process was initiated to gain a global insight into hypophosphataemia, associated morbidity and treatments. <bold>Methods:</bold> A systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO CRD42020163191)<bold>. </bold>Nine clinically relevant questions were generated, seven for adult and two for paediatric critically ill patients, and prevalence of hypophosphataemia was assessed in both<bold> </bold>of these groups. We identified trials through systematic searches of Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.<bold>Results: </bold>For all research questions, we identified 2727 titles in total, assessed 399 full texts, and retained 82 full texts for evidence synthesis, with 20 of them identified for several research questions. Only 3 randomized controlled trials were identified with two of them published only in abstract form, as well as 28 prospective and 31 retrospective studies, and 20 case reports. Relevant risk of bias regarding selection and comparability was identified for most of the studies. No meta-analysis could be performed. The prevalence of hypophosphataemia varied substantially in critically ill adults and children, but no study assessed consecutive admissions to intensive care.In both critically ill adults and children, several studies report that hypophosphataemia is associated with worse outcome (prolonged length of stay and the need for respiratory support, and higher mortality). However, there was insufficient evidence regarding the optimal threshold upon which hypophosphataemia becomes critical and requires treatment. We found no studies regarding the optimal frequency of phosphate measurements, and regarding the time window to correct hypophosphataemia. In adults, nutrient restriction on top of phosphate repletion in patients with refeeding syndrome may improve survival, although evidence is weak. <bold>Conclusion:</bold> Evidence on the definition, outcome and treatment of clinically relevant hypophosphataemia in critically ill adults and children is scarce and does not allow answering clinically relevant questions. High quality clinical research is crucial for the development of respective guidelines.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRenal function and acid-base balanceFrench-language works237,207