Physical Activity in Patients Treated With Peritoneal Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise has been shown to be of benefit in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases. Despite a lack of compelling evidence, patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) are often discouraged from participating in exercise programs that include weight lifting due to concerns about the development of hernias and leaks. The actual effects of physical activity with or without structured exercise programs for patients on PD remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risks and benefits of physical activity in the ESKD population treated with PD. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Included all studies that met our criteria regardless of country of origin. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ESKD treated with PD. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive and quantitative analysis of our primary and secondary outcome variables. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for observational and interventional studies examining the effects of physical activity in patients on PD. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of the identified studies. The primary outcomes of interest included patient-centered outcomes of mental health, physical functioning, fatigue, quality of life, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nutritional measures, lipid profile, blood pressure changes, maximum heart rate, resting heart rate, maximal oxygen consumption, muscle development, cognitive function, and markers of inflammation. RESULTS: Of 1828 studies identified by the literature search, 12 met the inclusion criteria including 6 interventional and 6 observational studies. There was limited information on the patient important outcomes. However, there is some evidence for improvements in burden of kidney disease, physical function, and some mental health measures with physical activity. LIMITATIONS: Lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials impaired our ability to determine the benefits and risks of increasing physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence of benefit with increased levels of physical activity in PD patients. Further research is needed to define the exercise program that is likely to be of most benefit to patients treated with PD.
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) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".