Gastrointestinal symptoms in patients receiving dialysis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to describe the prevalence of all gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms reported by dialysis patients, as well as the tools being used for diagnosis. GI symptoms are commonly reported in patients having haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), but there are multiple definitions and assessment tools reported in the literature. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was undertaken using five databases (Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Psycinfo and Web of Science) between 1996 and 2017. Articles were critically appraised using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data collected were analyzed in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. RESULTS: Thirty studies (24 cross-sectional, six cohort) met the inclusion criteria. In total 5161 patients were studied (3804 HD and 1507 PD). Fifteen studies included HD, five included PD and 10 included both dialysis modalities. GI symptoms were heterogeneous, with the reported prevalence highly dependent on the definitions used, inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessment tools and methods used. The most prevalent symptoms were constipation, indigestion, abdominal pain and reflux. Medication use and dietary data were poorly reported. The most common tools used were Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Rome II and Rome III. Constipation was more common in HD patients than PD patients. Indigestion, abdominal pain and reflux were commonly reported in both dialysis modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrointestinal symptoms are highly prevalent in people on dialysis; however, the evidence base is limited and further investigation of preventable causes and potential interventions such as medications and diet are required in future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".