Comparative effectiveness and safety among different tip-design hemodialysis long-term catheters: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare effectiveness and safety among different tip-design long-term hemodialysis (HD) catheters.Materials and Methods:PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until 8 December 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing step-tip, split-tip, or symmetrical-tip design catheters in patients undergoing HD will be included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality of RCTs and cohort studies. Data extracted from the articles were integrated to determine mean effective blood pump velocity (Qb), blood recirculation rates, secondary patency, catheter-related infection, catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), thrombosis rates, and all-cause mortality for the three tip-designs. We performed meta-analysis on dichotomous outcomes using a random-effects model to evaluate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cls). The effect sizes of continuous outcomes were reported as the mean difference (MD). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42021297069).Results:Six RCTs and 11 cohort studies of 2617 individuals were included in our meta-analysis, of which 1088 individuals inserted split-tip catheters, 897 individuals inserted step-tip catheters and 650 received symmetrical-tip design catheters. Sym-tip performed better in mean Qb (MD = 43.85, 95% Cl = 18.13–69.56, p = 0.0008) than step-tip. Split-tip had better outcomes vs step-tip in blood recirculation (RR = 3.44, 95% Cl = 2.49–4.39, p < 0.00001). Sym-tip had significantly better outcomes compared with step-tip (RR = 0.28, 95%Cl = 0.09–0.81, Z = 2.34, p = 0.02) and split-tip (RR = 0.19, 95% Cl = 0.09–0.43, p < 0.0001) in thrombotic events. No significant difference was found in secondary patency, infection rates, CRBSI, and all-cause mortality among the three tip-designs.Conclusion:The sym-tip of tunneled cuffed catheters performed better mean Qb, lower thrombotic events, and lower blood recirculation when blood line reversed, which may have an advantage over other two catheter-tips.
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".