MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409588844 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093334

Key performance indicators for acute intermittent kidney replacement therapy in critically ill patients: a protocol for a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4409588844 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Opgenorth, Liza Bialy, Kristin Robertson, Samantha L. Bowker, Selvi Sinnadurai, Jeanna Morrissey, Neesh Pannu, Scott Klarenbach, Matthew T. James, Ashita Tolwani, Michael Heung, Javier A. Neyra, Theresa Mottes, Fadi Hammal, Xiaoming Wang, Janice Y. Kung, Sean M. Bagshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerformance indicatorCINAHLSystematic reviewUsabilityRenal replacement therapyGrey literatureProtocol (science)Cochrane LibraryMEDLINEIntensive care medicineNursingPsychological interventionBusinessRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There have been previous initiatives to identify key performance indicators (KPIs) for continuous kidney replacement therapy. However, no formal reviews of the evidence for KPIs of intermittent kidney replacement therapy (IKRT) have been conducted. This systematic review will appraise the evidence for KPIs of IKRT in critically ill patients and is part of the DIALYZING WISELY (NCT05186636) programme which aims to improve the performance of acute renal replacement therapy in intensive care units by aligning local practices with evidence-based best practices. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library will be searched for studies involving KPIs for IKRT. Grey literature will also be searched and include technical reports, practice guidelines and conference proceedings as well as websites of relevant organisations. We will search the Agency of Healthcare Research and National Quality Measures Clearinghouse for IKRT-related KPIs. Studies will be included if they contain KPIs, occur in critically ill patients and are associated with IKRT. We will evaluate the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. The analysis will be primarily descriptive. Each KPI will be evaluated for importance, scientific acceptability, usability and feasibility using the four criteria proposed by the United States Strategic Framework Board for a National Quality Measurement and Reporting System. Finally, KPIs will be appraised for potential operational characteristics, potential to be integrated into electronic medical records, adoptability by stakeholders and affordability, if applicable. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Findings of this review will be disseminated through peer-related publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022074444.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.017
Bibliometrics0.0160.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.009

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.418 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207