MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963819033 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.7202350

Pathways for Diagnosing and Treating CKD-Associated Pruritus: A Narrative Review

2024· other· en· W6963819033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrative reviewNarrativeQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEKidney diseaseDiseaseDistressingHealth careBest practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of Review:Chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus is a common, persistent, and distressing itch experienced by patients across the CKD spectrum. Although the disorder is associated with adverse outcomes and poor health-related quality of life, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. The purpose of this narrative review is to offer health care providers guidance on how to effectively identify, assess, and treat patients with CKD-associated pruritus, with the goal of reducing symptom burden and improving patient-important outcomes, such as quality of life (QoL).Sources of Information:A panel of nephrologists and researchers from across Canada and the United States was assembled to develop this narrative review based on the best available data, current treatment guidelines, and their clinical experiences.Methods:A panel of nephrologists who actively care for patients with pruritus receiving dialysis from across Canada was assembled. Two researchers from the United States were also included based on their expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-associated pruritus. Throughout Spring 2023, the panel met to discuss key topics in the identification, assessment, and management of CKD-associated pruritus. Panel members subsequently developed summaries of the pertinent information based on the best available data, current treatment guidelines, and added information on their own clinical experiences. In all cases, approval of the article was sought and achieved through discussion.Key Findings:This narrative review provides pragmatic guidance addressing: (1) methods for screening CKD-associated pruritus, (2) assessing severity, (3) management of CKD-associated pruritus, and (4) suggested areas for future research. The panel developed a 3-pillar framework for proactive assessment and severity scoring in CKD-aP: systematic screening for CKD-associated pruritus (pillar 1), assessment of pruritus intensity (pillar 2), and understanding the impact of CKD-associated pruritus on the patient’s QoL (pillar 3). Management of CKD-associated pruritus can include ensuring optimization of dialysis adequacy, achieving mineral metabolism targets (ie, calcium, phosphate, and parathyroid hormone). However, treatment of CKD-associated pruritus usually requires additional interventions. Patients, regardless of CKD-associated pruritus severity, should be counseled on adequate skin hydration and other non-pharmacological strategies to reduce pruritus. Antihistamines should be avoided in favor of evidence-based treatments, such as difelikefalin and gabapentin.Limitations:A formal systematic review (SR) of the literature was not undertaken, although published SRs were reviewed. The possibility for bias based on the experts’ own clinical experiences may have occurred. Key takeaways are based on the current available evidence, of which head-to-head clinical trials are lacking.Funding:This work was funded by an arm’s length grant from Otsuka Canada Pharmaceutical Inc. (the importer and distributer of difelikefalin in Canada). LiV Medical Education Agency Inc. provided logistical and editorial support.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207