Impact of nursing interventions and patients education on quality of life regarding renal stones treated by percutaneous nephrolithotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Renal stones are a common and recurrent condition that requires medical or surgical treatment; all have significant impact on quality of life. The objective of this study was to detect factors affecting quality of life, improve quality of life for patients with renal stones treated by percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Methods: Research design: Prospective randomized controlled trail. Patients and methods: Random sample of 160 patients with renal stones planned for treatment by percutaneous nephrolithotomy at Assiut Urology and Nephrology Hospital were randomized into study and control groups. Study group (80 patients who received nursing interventions and patients education) and control group (80 patients who received routine hospital care). Their age ranged from18-65 years from both sexes. Tools: I Patient assessment sheet, II Rand short form 36 items questionnaire and III Teaching booklet.Results: Study group was showed a good improvement on quality of life after providing nursing interventions and patients education.Conclusions and recommendation: Nursing interventions and patients education for study group had a favorable effect on improving quality of life. Patients with percutaneous nephrolithotomy should receive careful care and education to improve their quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".