The Role of Desmopressin in Kidney Biopsies: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desmopressin is a vasopressin analogue. In addition to its antidiuretic effects, it is also a procoagulant. While it is indicated to reduce bleeding in a variety of situations, it is not currently being utilized broadly for kidney biopsies, a procedure where bleeding is the most common complication. Purpose of Review: To discuss the evidence surrounding use of desmopressin for kidney biopsy. Sources of information: We conducted a search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid), and Scopus databases. Methods: All identified trials were reviewed. Trials since the last systematic review in 2020 were organized in color-coded tables by efficacy, neutral results, or harm. Key Findings: Studies are generally favorable in terms of efficacy data for reduced bleeding during kidney biopsies, with some safety concerns. More studies are still needed, but we believe desmopressin can be justified to reduce bleeding complications of kidney biopsy in the setting of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Limitations: Trials involved small sample sizes, single-center data, and were largely observational in nature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".