MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379742003 · doi:10.1186/s12882-023-03184-4

Update of dialysis initiation timing in end stage kidney disease patients: is it a resolved question? A systematic literature review

2023· review· en· W4379742003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoyan Jia, Xueqing Tang, Yunfeng Li, Dongmei Xu, Paulo Moreira

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nephrology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Primary Health Care Foundation
KeywordsMedicineDialysisPeritoneal dialysisCreatinineInternal medicineHemodialysisBlood urea nitrogenIntensive care medicineRenal functionKidney diseaseDiabetes mellitusNephrologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The exact optimal timing of dialysis for ESKD patients remains unknown. This study systematically reviewed the available evidence with regard to the optimal initiation of maintenance dialysis in ESKD patients. METHODS: An electronic search was performed in Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library in order to find studies investigating associations between variables reference to "start of dialysis" and outcomes. Quality assessment and bias assessment were performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the ROBINSI tool. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included; four studies included only haemodialysis patients, three peritoneal dialysis, six both; study outcomes included mortality, cardiovascular events, technique failure, quality of life and others. Nine studies mainly focused on the optimal GFR of maintenance dialysis initiation; five studies showed none association between GFR and mortality or other adverse outcomes, two studies showed dialysis initiation at higher GFR levels were with poor prognosis, and 2 studies showed higher GFR levels with better prognosis. Three studies paid attention to comprehensive assessment of uremic signs and/or symptoms for optimal dialysis initiation; uremic burden based on 7 uremic indicators (hemoglobin, serum albumin, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, potassium, phosphorus, and bicarbonate) were not associated with mortality; another equation (combination of sex, age, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, serum albumin, haemoglobin, serum phosphorus, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure) based on fuzzy mathematics to assess the timing of haemodialysis initiation was accuracy to prognose 3-year survival; the third study found that volume overload or hypertension was associated with the highest risk for subsequent mortality. Two studies compared urgent or optimal start in dialysis, a study reported increased survival in optimal start patients, another reported no differences between Urgent-Start-PD and Early-Start-PD regarding 6-month outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity among the studies was quite high, with differences in sample size, variable and group characteristics; no RCT studies were included, which weakened the strength of evidences. CONCLUSIONS: The criteria for dialysis initiation were varied. Most studies proved that GFR at dialysis initiation was not associated with mortality, timing of dialysis initiation should not be based on GFR, assessments of volume load and patient's tolerance to volume overload are prospective approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NephrologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207