Quality of life among patients with restless legs syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to estimate the pooled mean score of quality of life (QoL) (total, mental and physical health components) among patients with Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS). Secondary aims were to assess: (I) QoL differences for RLS vs. control groups, (II) heterogeneity and possible sources; and (III) moderating variables. METHODS: Studies identified in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest between January 2000 and December 2022 were included. Methodological quality was assessed with Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO, CRD42023387318). RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies (20121 participants, 12 countries) were included. The corrected pooled estimated mean score of QoL was 47.92 (27 studies, CI 95 %: 43.11 to 52.72, range 0-100, i.e., low-high QoL) and was marginally affected by publication year (increased 0.89 by each year, p = 0.12). The corrected pooled estimated mean score of the mental health component was 47.32 (17 studies, 95 % CI: 43.12 to 51.51, range 0-100) and influenced by RLS instrument (decreased with recent versions, p = 0.05). The corrected pooled estimated mean score of the physical health component was 39.08 (17 studies, 95 % CI: 33.05 to 45.10, range 0-100), with no statistically significant moderator. The pooled estimated QoL scores were statistically significantly lower in RLS patients compared to control groups with standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.78, -0.57 and -0.50 respectively for overall QoL (24 studies), physical and mental health components (14 studies). Total QoL SMD was affected by proportion of women. CONCLUSION: Low QoL was revealed among RLS patients, which was statistically significantly reduced compared to control groups.
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.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it