Continuous renal replacement therapy and transplant-free survival in acute liver failure: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Acute liver failure is a rare syndrome with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in absence of transplantation as a rescue therapy. An important mechanism contributing to mortality is hyperammonemia which drives cerebral edema and raised intracranial pressure. Multiple therapies for managing hyperammonemia have been trialed. Continuous renal replacement therapy is effective in treating hyperammonemia in other disease states (notably inborn errors of metabolism). Its efficacy in acute liver failure has been suggested but further investigation is required to prove this. The objective of this systematic review will be to determine the efficacy of continuous renal replacement therapy in patients with acute liver failure and its effect on mortality and transplant-free survival. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database will be searched. Identified studies will include all patients with acute liver failure in a critical care unit treated with continuous renal replacement therapy. Primary outcome will be effectiveness of ammonia clearance and mortality. Patients treated with any other modality of ammonia lowering therapy (such as plasma exchange or Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System) will be excluded. Narrative synthesis of the identified studies will occur and if clinical homogeneity is identified, data will be pooled for meta-analysis using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model. Discussion We present a protocol for a systematic review seeking to establish a link between transplant-free survival in acute liver failure and the use of continuous renal replacement therapy. Given the anticipated paucity of literature on this subject, both narrative and quantitative syntheses are planned. Systematic review registration (PROSPERO) CRD42019122520 , registered April 16, 2019.
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 | 0.065 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.003 |
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".