Quality of life among patients with restless legs syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".