Effects of dietary interventions for metabolic acidosis in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic acidosis is a common complication of kidney disease and can result in further disease progression. Alkali therapy has been used to treat metabolic acidosis for decades. However, some concerns have been raised regarding its safety and long-term tolerability. Existing data suggest that dietary interventions can be beneficial in the management of chronic kidney disease (CKD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarize findings from studies comparing dietary interventions with placebo/usual care/no treatment in the management of metabolic acidosis in outpatient adults with CKD. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception to June 2022. Our primary outcome measure was change in serum bicarbonate. Any dietary intervention looking to manipulate dietary acid load was considered as an intervention. Data screening and extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool data. RESULTS: Dietary interventions resulted in clinically significant improvement in serum bicarbonate [mean difference 2.98 (95% confidence interval 0.77, 5.19); I2: 91%] and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels [mean difference 3.16 (95% confidence interval 0.24, 6.08); I2: 67%] compared with controls. Serum potassium, albumin and body mass index remained unchanged. Dietary interventions were reported to be safe. Subgroup analyses indicated a superiority of plant-based over non-plant-based interventions in the improvement of acid-base balance and eGFR; however, these findings are from low-quality and heterogenous studies. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the beneficial effects of dietary interventions aimed at reducing acid or adding base in the management of metabolic acidosis and kidney function in adults with CKD, with no adverse effects on serum potassium and nutritional status. Well-designed clinical trials looking at the treatment of metabolic acidosis with dietary interventions with a focus on adding base through fruit and vegetables are required.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".