Nutritional knowledge and related factors among hemodialysis patients: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examined the nutritional knowledge and related factors among hemodialysis patients. An exhaustive and methodical exploration was conducted across various global electronic databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases like Iranmedex and the Scientific Information Database. This search utilized keywords derived from Medical Subject Headings, specifically “knowledge”, “hemodialysis”, and “nutrition”, spanning from the inception of these databases until March 25, 2024. The quality of the studies incorporated into this systematic review was assessed utilizing the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool). In total, there were 721 hemodialysis patients in eight cross-sectional studies. Among the participants, 61.70% were male. The participants had a mean age of 55.03 (standard deviation [SD]=14.06) years. The studies incorporated in this systematic review were conducted in various countries: the United Kingdom (n=2), India (n=2), Italy (n=1), Iran (n=1), Greece (n=1), and a joint study from Turkey and Finland (n=1). The nutritional knowledge among hemodialysis patients was 47.79 out of 100. This score indicates a suboptimal level of knowledge in this area. Factors including education level, attitude, practice, family income per month, and diet counseling were related to the nutritional knowledge of hemodialysis patients. Consequently, policymakers and healthcare administrators can enhance the nutritional understanding of patients undergoing hemodialysis by focusing more on nutritional knowledge factors, such as education level, attitude, practice, monthly family income, and dietary counseling.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".