The role of exercise in improving patient‐reported outcomes in individuals on dialysis: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise improves objective measures of physical function in individuals on hemodialysis, but its effect on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is largely unknown. We performed a scoping review to characterize the existing knowledge base on exercise and PROs in dialysis patients to make recommendations for future research. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and SPORT Discus from inception to November 28, 2018 and then screened results for randomized controlled trials comparing aerobic/resistance exercise, or both, with no exercise in individuals on dialysis that reported results of any PRO. Of 1374 eligible studies, 25 studies met inclusion criteria. Study interventions included aerobic exercise (11 intradialytic and 3 home-based trials); intradialytic resistance exercise (seven studies) and combined aerobic and resistance exercise (six intradialytic and one facility-based trial). The PROs measured included health-related quality of life (n = 19), depression (n = 6), anxiety (n = 3), symptom burden (n = 4), sleep quality (n = 2), restless legs syndrome (n = 2), disability (n = 2), and self-reported physical activity level (n = 4). Only five studies included a PRO as a primary outcome. Studies primarily used broad/generic measures of health-related quality of life and the effect of exercise on symptoms remains relatively unexplored, particularly in peritoneal dialysis populations. Although limited, the role of exercise in improving restless legs was consistent and is a promising outcome for future study. A critical step to improving the quality of the research on this topic includes the use of validated and consistent PRO measures.
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 | 0.013 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".