4.2 Article

I-KID study protocol: evaluation of efficacy, outcomes and safety of a new infant haemodialysis and ultrafiltration machine in clinical use: a randomised clinical investigation using a cluster stepped-wedge design

Journal

BMJ PAEDIATRICS OPEN
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001224

Keywords

nephrology; neonatology; technology

Categories

Funding

  1. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme (EME) [14/23/26]
  2. Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [7419]
  3. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [14/23/26] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The I-KID study aims to compare the clinical efficacy, outcomes and safety of a novel infant haemodialysis machine NIDUS with currently available therapy in the UK. The study, taking place in six UK centres, plans to recruit 95 babies requiring renal replacement therapy, with high parent involvement in design and dissemination of results.
Introduction The I-KID study aims to determine the clinical efficacy, outcomes and safety of a novel non-CE-marked infant haemodialysis machine, the Newcastle Infant Dialysis Ultrafiltration System (NIDUS), compared with currently available therapy in the UK. NIDUS is specifically designed for renal replacement therapy in small babies between 0.8 and 8 kg. Methods and analysis The clinical investigation is taking place in six UK centres. This is a randomised clinical investigation using a cluster stepped-wedge design. The study aims to recruit 95 babies requiring renal replacement therapy in paediatric intensive care units over 20 months. Ethics and dissemination The study has high parent and public involvement at all stages in its design and parents will be involved in dissemination of results to parents and professionals via publications, conference proceedings and newsletters. The study has has ethics permissions from Tyne and Wear South Research Ethics Committee.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available