MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311503212 · doi:10.1177/08968608221136389

PD effluent specimen collection: Your questions answered

2022· review· en· W4311503212 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Elizabeth Figueiredo, Elaine Bowes, Josephine Chow, Helen Hurst, Joanna Lee Neumann, Rachael Walker, Gillian Brunier

Bibliographic record

VenuePeritoneal Dialysis International · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisEffluentMedicineNephrologyDialysisStaffingIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicineWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a patient on peritoneal dialysis (PD) presents with suspected PD-related peritonitis (e.g. cloudy PD fluid and abdominal pain), one of the most important initial aspects of management is for the nephrology nurse/home dialysis nurse to collect PD effluent specimens for white blood cells count, Gram stain, culture and sensitivity for inspection and to send for laboratory testing before antibiotics are started. A review by seven members of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) Nursing Committee of all 133 questions posted to the ISPD website 'Questions about PD' over the last 4 years (January 2018-December 2021), revealed 97 posted by nephrology nurses from around the world. Of these 97 questions, 10 were noted to be related to best practices for PD effluent specimen collection. For our review, we focused on these 10 questions along with their responses by the members of the ISPD 'Ask The Experts Team', whereby existing best practice recommendations were considered, if available, relevant literature was cited and differences in international practice discussed. We revised the original responses for clarity and updated the references. We found that these 10 questions were quite varied but could be organised into four categories: how to collect PD effluent safely; how to proceed with PD effluent collection; how to collect PD effluent for assessment; and how to proceed with follow-up PD effluent collection after intraperitoneal antibiotics have been started. In general, we found that there was limited evidence in the PD literature to answer several of these 10 questions posted to the ISPD website 'Questions about PD' by nephrology nurses from around the world on this important clinical topic of best practices for PD effluent specimen collection. Some of these questions were also not addressed in the latest ISPD Peritonitis Guidelines. Moreover, when polling members of our ISPD Nursing Committee we found when answering a few of these questions, nursing practice varied within and among countries. We encourage PD nurses to conduct their own research on this important topic, focusing on areas where research evidence is lacking.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeritoneal Dialysis InternationalSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207