MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403870628 · doi:10.1186/s12882-024-03829-y

Medications for community pharmacists to dose adjust or avoid to enhance prescribing safety in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review and modified Delphi

2024· review· en· W4403870628 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jo‐Anne Wilson, Natalie Ratajczak, Katie Halliday, Marisa Battistella, Heather Naylor, Maneka Sheffield, Judith Marin, Jennifer Pitman, Natalie Kennie‐Kaulbach, Shanna Trenaman, Louise Gillis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nephrology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia HospitalHorizon Health NetworkKellogg's (Canada)Saint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkNova Scotia Health Authority
FundersCollege of Pharmacy, Dalhousie UniversityDalhousie UniversityFaculty of Health, Dalhousie University
KeywordsMedicinePolypharmacyKidney diseaseNephrologyIntensive care medicinePharmacyDelphi methodFamily medicineDeprescribingMedical prescriptionInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists commonly see individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and are in an ideal position to mitigate harm from inappropriate prescribing. We sought to develop a relevant medication list for community pharmacists to dose adjust or avoid in individuals with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 30 mL/min informed through a scoping review and modified Delphi panel of nephrology, geriatric and primary care pharmacists. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to identify higher risk medications common to community pharmacy practice, which require a dose adaptation in individuals with advanced CKD. A 3-round modified Delphi was conducted, informed by the medications identified in our scoping review, to establish consensus on which medications community pharmacists should adjust or avoid in individuals with stage 4 and 5 CKD (non-dialysis). RESULTS: Ninety-two articles and 88 medications were identified from our scoping review. Of which, 64 were deemed relevant to community pharmacy practice and presented for consideration to 27 panel experts. The panel consisted of Canadian pharmacists practicing in nephrology (66.7%), geriatrics (18.5%) and primary care (14.8%). All participants completed rounds 1 and 2 and 96% completed round 3. At the end of round 3, the top 40 medications to adjust or avoid were identified. All round 3 participants selected metformin, gabapentin, pregabalin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nitrofurantoin, ciprofloxacin and rivaroxaban as the top ranked medications. CONCLUSION: Medications eliminated by the kidneys may accumulate and cause harm in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease. This study provides an expert consensus of the top 40 medications that community pharmacists should collaboratively adjust or avoid to enhance medication safety and prescribing for individuals with an eGFR below 30 mL/min.

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)0.145
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.228
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1450.228
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0190.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NephrologySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207