Needle Direction and Distance of Arteriovenous Fistula Cannulation in Hemodialysis Adequacy; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the evidence regarding the impact of needle direction and distance of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannulation on KT/V (where k is the dialyzer urea clearance, t, the duration of dialysis, and V, the volume of distribution of urea) and access recirculation (AR) as hemodialysis (HD) adequacy criteria. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was performed on international and domestic electronic databases from the earliest to June 4, 2022 using keywords. Analysis was performed in STATA software v.14. Results: Three randomized control trials (RCTs) and four non-RCT articles were included in the final review. Six studies reported the effects of direction, while four mentioned the effects of distances of AVF cannulation on outcomes of HD adequacy based on KT/V or AR. Results of three non-RCT studies showed that retrograde direction decreased KT/V more than antegrade direction (ES: 0.44, 95% CI: -0.38 to 1.27). Two non-RCT studies showed that antegrade decreased AR compared to the retrograde direction (ES: -0.64, 95%CI: -1.94 to 0.67). However, the results of two RCTs indicated uncertainty about this issue. Two of the four studies suggested that a distance of 5 cm or more in arterial and venous needles had greater adequacy than a distance of less than 5 cm. However, other studies did not confirm this finding. Conclusion: Overall comparison of the results qualitatively and quantitatively indicated uncertainty about the effects of direction and distance of AVF cannulation on HD adequacy outcomes. More studies with high-quality designs, such as RCTs, are required to better understand and adjudicate the effects of needle direction and distance of AVF cannulation on HD adequacy outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".