MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411686090 · doi:10.2196/71943

Comparing Clearances of Polymethylmethacrylate and Polysulfone Dialyzer Membranes for Postdilution Hemodiafiltration in Patients With Kidney Failure: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4411686090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cahyani Gita Ambarsari, Astrid Kristina Kardani, Agustina Wulandari, Nadhifah Nadhifah

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolysulfoneClearanceSystematic reviewDialysisProtocol (science)HemodialysisIntensive care medicineMembraneUrologyMEDLINESurgeryChemistryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is needed by patients with kidney failure to eliminate metabolic waste. When kidney transplantation is not feasible, hemodialysis (HD) is performed. Hemodiafiltration (HDF) provides a better solute clearance than conventional HD due to its higher convective dose. The clearance performances of HDF also depend on the type of dialysis membrane used. Polysulfone (PS) membranes have been used since 1965 due to their excellent resistance and biocompatibility. However, the newer generation of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) membranes offers comparable convective capacity with reduced albumin loss. OBJECTIVE: The forthcoming study aims to compare the solute clearance of postdilution HDF using PMMA versus PS dialyzer membranes in patients with kidney failure requiring long-term HD. METHODS: The literature search will use databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane. Two independent reviewers will select studies and assess their quality. Pooled estimates of relevant factors will be computed via a random-effects model using Stata/BE 18 (StataCorp) software. The reporting of findings will adhere to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: The search and screening for the systematic literature review are expected to be completed in May 2026. Data extraction, quality appraisal, and subsequent data synthesis will begin in June 2026. The review should be completed by October 2026, and the study results will be published in 2027. CONCLUSIONS: Dialyzer membrane clearance determines HD quality. Nevertheless, many middle uremic molecules are poorly cleared with conventional HD. Consequently, HDF was invented to improve their clearance. Among the most widely used dialyzer membranes, PS and PMMA are used in the newer generation of HDF. Nevertheless, no available systematic reviews have compared the efficacy of the 2 dialyzer membrane materials. Although no ideal dialyzer can efficiently remove all types of uremic toxins while retaining essential elements, improving solute clearance should benefit patients. This information could help clinicians determine which membrane to use in HDF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024603277; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024603277. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/71943.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.035
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.003

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 head0.524
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→