Symptom clusters in incident dialysis patients: associations with clinical variables and quality of life

Abstract

Symptom clustering does not explain the lack of meaningful associations between symptoms and clinical variables. Strong associations of symptom clusters with quality of life dimensions suggest that psychological factors could better explain symptom burden. Patients' perceptions of symptoms should be routinely assessed as part of clinical care to improve self-management strategies.

Anorexia, fatigue, and plasma interleukin-6 levels in chronic hemodialysis patients

“…Second, the assessment of fatigue was made through the vitality scale of the SF-36 questionnaire, an instrument that measures the experience of fatigue during a period ranging from weeks to months and may fail to recognize daily or weekly fatigue fluctuations. The SF-36 fatigue subscale is the most used tool to assess fatigue in ESRD patients receiving chronic dialysis 1,3,32,33 and has been used also with people with chronic diseases such as obstructive pulmonary disease, Sjogren syndrome, spinal cord injury, and systemic lupus erythematosus. 3,[35][36][37] In summary, the presence of both anorexia and fatigue in chronic HD patients is associated with significantly higher levels of plasma IL-6 and CRP and a higher frequency of comorbidities.…”

Xerostomia is Associated With Old Age and Poor Appetite in Patients on Chronic Hemodialysis

“…[2][3][4][5][6][7] It is important to note that most of the studies that have evaluated the symptom burden of hemodialysis (HD) patients did not assess the presence of xerostomia. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] In patients on HD, the prevalence of xerostomia is widespread 2-7 because different definitions and various modalities have been used to assess patients for the presence of xerostomia. A useful and validated method of assessment of xerostomia is provided by the Xerostomia Inventory (XI), which consists of 11 questions that assess the presence and severity of various aspects of xerostomia according to a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).…”

Clustering of UPOINT Domains and Subdomains in Men with Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome and Contribution to Symptom Severity

“…8 It has also been applied for urological and nonurological disorders to understand relationships among clinical features and outcomes. 10,11 We looked at the behavior of UPOINT subdomains with respect to the incidence and contribution to the NIH-CPSI score and determined whether it would be clinically useful to group them in their domain or more valid to keep them separate. We also studied associations among domains to determine what, if any, domain clustering exists and whether these more common phenotypes might provide clues to pathophysiology.…”