Summary of findings 1. Exercise versus control for people receiving dialysis.
| Exercise versus control for people receiving dialysis | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people receiving dialysis Settings: multinational Intervention: exercise Comparison: control | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (RCTs) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Exercise | |||||
|
Fatigue (IFS, MFI, PIPER, or HD‐related fatigue scale) median follow‐up: 2.7 months |
The mean score for fatigue ranged across control groups from 29.75 to 81.17 (IFS, MFI, PFS, or HD related fatigue scale) | The standardised mean of fatigue in the intervention group was 1.18 lower than the control group (95% CI 2.04 lower to 0.31lower) | ‐‐ | 217 (4) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2,3 | Exercise may improve fatigue compared to control in people undergoing HD |
| Weakness | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Energy | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Tiredness | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Exhaustion | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| Asthenia | Not reported | Not reported | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | ‐‐ | No studies reported this outcome |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk Ratio; IFS: Iowa Fatigue Scale; MFI: Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; PFS: Piper Fatigue Scale; HD: haemodialysis. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Evidence certainty was downgraded by one level due to study limitations
2 Evidence certainty was downgraded by one level due to imprecision (Optimal Information Size (OIS)) not met and indirectness in outcome measure
3 Evidence certainty was downgraded by one level due to inconsistency