Quality of life and functional capacity in depressive patients on hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression is a common disorder in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and some data support its relationship with functional capacity and quality of life. However, to date, this has not been evaluated systematically or through meta-analysis. We sought to investigate the relationship of quality of life and functional capacity with depressive disorder in patients with CKD on hemodialysis. This systematic review considered studies published up to 2021 and included cross-sectional and cohort studies. PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases were used to search for studies. The New Castle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale was used to measure the quality of the studies. A total of 4,626 studies were found and, after applying the selection criteria, 16 studies (2,175 patients) remained for qualitative analysis and 10 for meta-analysis (1,484 patients). The physical component summary (MD=-6.563; 95%CI: -9.702 to -3.424) and mental component summary (MD=-18.760; 95%CI: -28.641 to -8.879) were lower in depressive patients, as in all Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) domains. Only one study provided data regarding functional capacity, but it was not evaluated by the defined outcome measure. Twelve studies were classified as "moderate quality" (5 to 6 stars) and four were classified as "low-quality" (0 to 4 stars). This meta-analysis with CKD patients on hemodialysis showed a negative relationship between depression and quality of life, with worsening in all physical and mental domains of the SF-36 in depressed patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".