4.7 Article

Nocturnal hemodialysis does not improve overall measures of quality of life compared to conventional hemodialysis

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 75, 期 5, 页码 542-549

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2008.639

关键词

clinical trial; dialysis; end-stage kidney disease; home hemodialysis; nocturnal hemodialysis; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the quality of life of 52 patients undergoing nocturnal hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis. Quality of life was measured using a number of established methods including the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form and the preference-based Euroqol EQ-5D questionnaire (whose scores varied from 0 to 1). The primary outcome was a change in the Euroqol EQ-5D index scores between baseline and 6 months. We performed additional analyses comparing change in quality of life from pre-randomization (when patients were unaware of treatment allocation) to 6 months. Other analyses considered the impact of nocturnal hemodialysis on four pre-selected Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form domains, and the longer term impact of nocturnal hemodialysis on quality of life. Compared with conventional hemodialysis, nocturnal hemodialysis increased Euroqol-EQ-5D index scores by 0.05, which was not significantly different from baseline. When six-month values were compared with pre-randomization values rather than baseline values, the between group difference was larger (0.12) though it was still not statistically significant (P= .06). Nocturnal hemodialysis was associated with clinically and statistically significant improvements in selected kidneyspecific quality of life domains (P= .01 for effects of kidney disease; P= .02 for burden of kidney disease). Our primary quality of life analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant change between nocturnal hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis, though statistically significant and clinically important changes in some secondary kidney-diseasespecific measures were observed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据