The impact of intradialytic elastic band exercise on physical and cognitive abilities in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise benefits patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) by addressing complications and dysfunctions. Elastic band exercise is cost-effective, but its safety, efficacy, and feasibility during dialysis are not well-established. The aim of this study is to investigate the physical and mental effects of intradialytic elastic band exercise in patients on MHD. Sixty patients on MHD were randomly assigned to the exercise or control group (30 patients/group). The control group received routine hemodialysis care, whereas those in the exercise group performed intradialytic elastic band exercises for 0.5–2 h during hemodialysis three times a week for 12 weeks. Physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]), cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]), fatigue (14-item Fatigue Scale [FS-14]), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]), and anxiety and depression (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAMA]/Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD]) were assessed. The exercise group showed significant improvements in SPPB (p = 0.008) and MoCA (p < 0.001) scores compared to pre-intervention and control groups. FS-14 scores decreased significantly (p = 0.005). PSQI (p < 0.001) and HAMA (p < 0.001) scores improved post-intervention but not versus control. HAMD scores reduced significantly (p < 0.001). Satisfaction and recommendation scores were 9.57 and 9.71. In conclusions, intradialytic elastic band exercise improved physical and cognitive function and alleviated fatigue, sleep issues, depression, and anxiety in patients on MHD. With high compliance, no significant adverse events, and high patient satisfaction, it is recommended as a routine intervention during dialysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".