MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397047897 · doi:10.1681/asn.20223311s1459a

Association of Bioimpedance Guided Fluid Management in Patients Receiving Peritoneal Dialysis and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4397047897 on OpenAlexaff
Sara S. Almutar, Conor Judge, Abdulmajeed Abdullah Alsadhan, K. Scott Brimble, Peter J. Margetts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisMeta-analysisMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Fluid management in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis is a major challenge for nephrologists. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the association with bioimpedance guided fluid management in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to 09-Jan-2022 for randomized clinical trials comparing bioimpedance and clinical examination guided fluid management in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis. A randomeffects meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled treatment-effect. The primary outcome measure was a composite cardiovascular outcome. Secondary outcome measures included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations, technique failure, change in systolic blood pressure (mmHg), weight (kg) and urine output (ml/day). Results: Seven trials were eligible for inclusion (n=1238) (mean follow-up: 19 months). The association of bioimpedance guided fluid management compared to clinical examination guided fluid management and cardiovascular outcomes was notsignificant (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% Confidence Interval (CI),0.49-1.33;Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) 2.2%,-3to7.1). Bioimpedance guided fluid management compared to clinical examination guided fluid management was associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality (OR0.50,95%CI, 0.26-0.98,ARR4.5%,0.3-8.7), systolic blood pressure (mean reduction -0.2 mmHg [-0.36 to -0.04]) but not all-cause mortality, weight (kg) or residual urine output (ml/day). Conclusions: Bioimpedance guided fluid management in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis compared to control was not associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular outcomes. However, bioimpedance guided fluid management, compared to control, was associated with statistically significant lower cardiovascular mortality and lower systolic blood pressure without a reduction in residual urine output.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.035
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207