Development and Validation of a Treatment Algorithm for Osteoarthritis Pain Management in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease Undergoing Hemodialysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although osteoarthritis is common in the hemodialysis population and leads to poor health outcomes, pain management is challenged by the absence of clinical guidance. A treatment algorithm was developed and validated to aid hemodialysis clinicians in managing osteoarthritis pain. Objective: The objective was to develop and validate a treatment algorithm for managing osteoarthritis pain in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Design: A validation study was conducted based on Lynn's method for content validation. Setting: To develop and validate a treatment algorithm, interviews were conducted virtually by the primary researcher with clinicians from various institutions across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area in Ontario. Patients: The treatment algorithm was developed and validated for the management of osteoarthritis pain in patients on hemodialysis. Patients were not involved in the development or validation of the tool. Measurements: The algorithm was measured for content and face validity. Content validity was measured by calculating the content validity index of each component (I-CVI) of the algorithm and the overall scale validity index (S-CVI). Face validity was assessed by calculating the percentage of positive responses to the face validity statements. Methods: A draft algorithm was developed based on literature searches and expert opinion and validated by interviewing nephrology and pain management clinicians. Through consecutive rounds of 1:1 interviews, content and face validity were assessed by asking participants to rate the relevance of each component of the algorithm and indicate their level of agreeability with a series of statements. Following each round, the I-CVI of the algorithm as well as the S-CVI was calculated and the percentage of positive responses to the statements was determined. The research team revised the algorithm in response to the findings. The final algorithm provides a stepwise approach to the non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management of pain, including topical, oral, and opioid use. Results: A total of 18 clinicians from 7 institutions across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area were interviewed (10 pharmacists, 5 nurse practitioners, and 3 physicians). The average S-CVI of the algorithm across all 3 rounds was 0.93. At least 78% of participants provided positive responses to the face validity statements. Limitations: An algorithm was developed based on input from clinicians working in the province of Ontario, limiting the generalizability of the algorithm across provinces. In addition, the algorithm did not include the perspectives of primary care providers or patients/caregivers. Conclusions: An algorithm for the management of osteoarthritis pain in the hemodialysis population was developed and validated through expert review to standardize practices and encourage clinicians to use evidence-based treatments and address the psychosocial symptoms of pain. As the algorithm possesses a high degree of content and face validity, it may improve osteoarthritis pain management among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Future research will assess the implementation of the algorithm across hemodialysis settings.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it