Systematic review of end stage renal disease in Pakistan: Identifying implementation research outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review analysis to identify and evaluate the available literature on implementation science outcomes research in relation to End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) in Pakistan. METHODS: A systematic database search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Ovid was conducted through October 22nd, 2022, without any restrictions on publication dates. A screening and data extraction tool, Covidence, was used to evaluate the literature against our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to evaluate the selected studies. RESULTS: We identified four studies that presented findings of implementation outcomes research which were related to appropriateness, feasibility, and acceptability. Appropriateness was examined using knowledge scores (p = 0.022) and medication adherence scores (p < 0.05) that showed statistical significance between the control and intervention groups. Acceptability was assessed through a cross sectional quantitative descriptive study that evaluated the reasons for refusal and acceptance of treatment in a cohort of patients suffering from ESRD. Feasibility was examined in one cross sectional, and one mixed methods study that aimed to evaluate and understand the impact of initiating dialysis treatment and the feasibility of maintaining it in low-income families that care for children or adults with ESRD. CONCLUSION: The preliminary results of this review indicate a gap in the availability of implementation research studies about ESRD in Pakistan. The burden of ESRD, and the implementation methods by which it is treated is notable in Pakistan and requires evidence-based measures to be implemented to support the critical healthcare delivery platforms that provide treatment.
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 | 0.081 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".