Standards of diabetes care and burden of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes on peritoneal dialysis: Results from a real-world clinical audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited data on the standards of diabetes care in people on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Our aim was to assess the standards of diabetes care and the burden of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes on PD. We performed a retrospective study at three university hospitals from December 2021 to January 2022. Clinical data were extracted from electronic health records. Diabetes care of people on PD was compared against recommended standards for people with diabetes on haemodialysis (as there are no agreed standards for PD). The degree of hypoglycaemia awareness was assessed by validated questionnaires. A total of 65 adults (15 type 1, 49 type 2 and 1 monogenic-diabetes) with a mean age of 63 (range 29–88) years were evaluated. Of them, 92% had diabetes retinal screening with annual review. In contrast, in this high-risk group for foot disease, only 77% had annual foot reviews. The rates of diabetes specialist reviews were variable between hospitals at 63–94% and 10 (15%) had impaired hypoglycaemia awareness. Of the cohort, 32% had HbA1c within the acceptable range of 58–80 mmol/mol (7.5–8.5%), 21% had HbA1c below 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) and 21% ( n = 14) reported at least one hypoglycaemic event per month. Our results indicate variation of care within and between different centres, and the need for improved diabetes care in people on PD. Further work is required to establish agreed standards/recommendations of diabetes care in this population. Our findings highlight the necessity of an integrated multidisciplinary approach to improve the standard of diabetes care for people on PD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".