Frequency and severity of pain and symptom distress among patients with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Data on pain management in haemodialysis patients with end-stage renal disease are scanty. Our study aimed to collect information on the frequency and severity of pain and symptom distress among long-term dialysis patients in southern Switzerland. METHODS: Patients with chronic kidney disease stage 5, on dialysis, treated in five nephrology units in southern Switzerland, who had given informed consent and were able to complete the survey, were interviewed to assess pain and correlated symptoms using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Brief Pain Inventory and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. To evaluate the impact of symptoms, the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living questionnaire was used. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three patients, aged 36-90 years and with a mean time on dialysis of 3.5 years, were interviewed. Pain was experienced by 81 patients during the 4 weeks before the interview: 68 had chronic pain; 66 reported pain intensity higher than 5 on the VAS; 35 identified musculoskeletal pain as the most disturbing pain. Five patients used drugs to cope with pain during the night. Asthenia and fatigue were prevalent concomitant symptoms. Asthenia, fatigue, sleep disturbances, dyspnoea, loss of appetite, nausea/vomiting and anxiety were correlated with pain. The majority of the patients reported that their pain limited their daily life activities. CONCLUSIONS: Pain severity and symptom distress in dialysis patients are important, but underestimated and undertreated. They interfere with sleep quality and daily living. Routine assessment of pain burden, pain management similar to that used in palliative care, and adequate analgesic use to treat specific dialysis-associated pain syndromes should be considered in guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".