Comparison of the Effect of Reflexology and Swedish Massage on Restless Legs Syndrome and Sleep Quality in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients undergoing hemodialysis experience painful complications such as restless leg syndrome and poor sleep quality, which negatively affect their quality of life.Purpose: This study aimed to compare the effect of reflexology and Swedish massage on restless leg syndrome and sleep quality in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Method: This is a randomized clinical trial conducted on 90 patients undergo-ing hemodialysis. The two intervention groups received either foot reflexology (n = 30) or Swedish massage (n = 30) for four weeks. In the sham group (n = 30), a simple touch of the knee down was performed with the same conditions as the intervention groups. Each sample completed the International Restless Leg Syndrome and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Questionnaires before, immediately after, and one month after the intervention.Result: The results showed that immediately after the intervention, rest-less leg syndrome and sleep quality were significantly better in the foot reflexology massage group than the Swedish massage and sham groups (PRLS < 0.001, PPSQI < 0.001); also, changes in restless leg syndrome and sleep quality, respectively, before and one-month follow-up after the intervention were not significant in all three groups (PRLS = 0.47, PPSQI = 0.95), (PRLS = 0.91, PPSQI = 0.87).Conclusion: Reflexology and Swedish massage, as complementary methods, can improve the restless leg syndrome and sleep quality of patients undergoing hemodialysis. However, foot reflexology massage had been more effective.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".