A systematic review with meta‐analysis of the effects of arm exercise training programs on arteriovenous fistula maturation among people with chronic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study systematically reviewed the evidence and quantified the effectiveness of arm exercise training programs, before and after arteriovenous fistula (AVF) operation on AVF maturation, among people with chronic kidney disease. Scopus, CINAHL, PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and reference lists were searched. Experimental studies that investigated the effect of arm exercise before and post-operation on AVF maturations were included. Screened and extracted data were administered by two independent reviewers. Seven studies with preoperative exercise were included in a systematic review, while five studies were analyzed in a meta-analysis. Preoperative exercise significantly increased vessel diameters and grip strength after training. Postoperative exercise had higher clinical and ultrasonographic (US) maturation rates and arterial blood flow than controls (risk ratio [RR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.69; RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57; weight mean difference, 166.03; 95% CI, 27.58-304.49, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that isometric exercise training promoted clinical and US maturations (RR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.51-3.82; RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.30, respectively), whereas isotonic exercise promoted clinical maturation (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34). Grip strength had a greater trend in the intervention group than controls (standardized mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, -0.06 to 1.25). In conclusion, arm exercise training improves vascular function, which is essential before surgery. The meta-analysis suggested that arm exercise training promotes AVF clinical and US maturations after surgery. Subgroup analysis suggested that isometric-arm exercise training may have a larger effect on AVF maturation. However, more studies are needed to draw a solid conclusion.
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 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".