Lock Solutions for Central Venous Catheters in Hemodialysis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central venous catheters (CVCs) are widely used in chronic hemodialysis, especially in patients lacking long-term vascular access. However, they are associated with significant risks, including catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) and catheter dysfunction. Lock solutions—such as heparin, citrate, taurolidine, ethanol, and antibiotic-based formulations—are used between dialysis sessions to prevent these complications, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. This project is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies evaluating lock solutions for tunneled and non-tunneled CVCs in hemodialysis patients. The primary aim is to compare their impact on CRBSI incidence and catheter patency. Secondary outcomes—such as adverse events, hospitalization, and mortality—are grouped into a miscellaneous outcome table for structured reporting and synthesis. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis will be performed, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses based on lock type, study design, and patient characteristics. The findings aim to inform clinical guidelines and promote safer, more effective catheter care in dialysis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".