MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226303111 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267290

Physical activity and exercise recommendations for people receiving dialysis: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4226303111 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Lambert, Courtney J. Lightfoot, Dev Jegatheesan, Iwona Gabrys, Paul N. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
FundersIllawarra Health and Medical Research Institute
KeywordsMedicinePhysical activityMEDLINEDialysisPhysical therapyGerontologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Remaining physically active is important to patients undertaking dialysis, however, clinical recommendations regarding exercise type, timing, intensity, and safety precautions vary. The purpose of this scoping review was to analyse and summarise recommendations for physical activity and exercise for people undertaking dialysis and identify areas that require further research or clarification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review of literature from five bibliographic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus) was conducted. Eligible articles included consensus guidelines, position statements, reviews, or clinical practice guidelines that included specific physical activity and exercise recommendations for people undertaking dialysis. Key search terms included "kidney disease" OR "kidney failure" OR "chronic kidney disease" OR "end stage kidney disease" AND guideline* OR consensus OR "position statement" OR prescription OR statement AND exercise OR "physical activity". Hand searching for relevant articles in all first twenty quartile 1 journals listed on SCImago under 'medicine-nephrology' and 'physical therapy, sports therapy and rehabilitation' using the terms 'exercise and dialysis' was undertaken. Finally, home pages of key societies and professional organisations in the field of sports medicine and nephrology were searched. RESULTS: The systematic search strategy identified 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. Two were specific to pediatric dialysis and three to peritoneal dialysis. Whilst many publications provided recommendations on aerobic exercise, progressive resistance training and flexibility, few provided explicit guidance. Recommendations for the intensity, duration and frequency of aerobic and resistance training varied. Discrepancies or gaps in guidance about precautions, contraindications, termination criteria, progression, and access site precautions were also apparent. CONCLUSION: Future guidelines should include specific guidance regarding physical activity, safety precautions, and timing and intensity of exercise for individuals who undertake dialysis. Collaborative multidisciplinary guideline development and appropriate exercise counselling may lead to increased participation in physical activity and exercise and facilitate better patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207