ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Development and validation of a physical fatigue assessment scale for patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a physical fatigue assessment tool for maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, which enables them to self-evaluate their fatigue intensity through analysis of its impact on their daily physical activities.
methodsThe physical fatigue assessment tool was developed based on expert evaluation and cognitive interviews. Concurrent validity was assessed by comparing the newly developed tool Physical Fatigue Assessment Ruler with the fatigue numeric rating scale (NRS). Convergent validity was evaluated by examining the relationship between fatigue scores and objective physical activity data obtained from ActiGraph accelerometers.
resultsThis study included a total of fifty-six MHD patients (58.6 ± 12.6 years, 50% male). There was a significant positive correlation between scores on the Physical Fatigue Assessment Ruler and those on the fatigue NRS (rho = 0.784, P < 0.01). Furthermore, physical fatigue scores exhibited significant negative correlations with ActiGraph-estimated physical activity metrics, including energy expenditure (rho = -0.264, P < 0.001) and step counts (rho = -0.291, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study developed the Physical Fatigue Assessment Ruler for MHD patients with acceptable validity. Its ability to quantify fatigue intensity based on impacts on daily physical activities provides healthcare providers with crucial information for personalizing interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER : Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.