Quality of life, symptoms, and sleep quality of elderly with end-stage renal disease receiving conservative management: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have experienced diminished quality of life and debilitating symptoms. Conservative management may be a potential treatment option. Currently, limited studies have been conducted about the main outcome of conservative management, including quality of life, symptoms and sleep quality. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the quality of life, symptoms and sleep quality of elderly patients with ESRD undergoing conservative management. METHODS: Evidence-based medicine database (JBI and Cochrane) and original literature database (PubMed, Medline, EMbase, Web of Science) were searched up to March 12, 2018. The quality of included papers was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The total of 1229 patients were involved with an average age of 60.6 ~ 82 years. Patients choosing conservative management were older and more functionally impaired compared to those opting for dialysis. 55% patients undergoing conservative management had stable or improved quality of life and symptoms in prospective cohort study. However, the results revealed that there were no significant differences in quality of life and symptom between conservative management and renal replacement therapy. Only one study assessed quality of life of older patients using SF-36, with a lower score in physical health subscale of conservative management patients than those of renal replacement therapy. Although more than 40% of the patients had poor sleep quality, no significant difference was found between conservative management and renal replacement therapy. Sleep disorders were associated with fatigue and other symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a limited literature, conservative management is likely to improve quality of life and alleviate symptoms of end-stage renal disease patients with considerable clinical implications mainly in elderly patients. Future study should pay more attention to the various treatment outcomes of conservative management, providing abundant evidence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".