ArticlePeerJ2026
Symptom network analysis in maintenance hemodialysis patients: a multicenter study.
Article in PeerJ, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify symptom clusters and construct a symptom network in multicenter maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, with the aim of elucidating core symptoms and informing evidence-based symptom management strategies. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using convenience sampling to recruit 502 MHD patients from 10 hemodialysis centers in Quanzhou, Fujian Province, China. Symptom burden was assessed using the Dialysis Symptom Index. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to identify symptom clusters. Network analysis was performed using R software (version 4.3.1), with the qgraph, bootnet, and network tools packages utilized for network visualization, stability analysis, and centrality estimation. Network centrality indices were calculated, and strength centrality-which demonstrated adequate stability-was used as the primary index to identify core symptoms. Results: Exploratory factor analysis revealed five distinct symptom clusters: emotional symptoms, fluid and electrolyte imbalance symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, uremic toxins symptoms, and sleep disturbance symptoms. Network analysis demonstrated that muscle cramps exhibited the highest strength centrality (1.758), followed by nervousness (1.332) and worrying (1.238), identifying muscle cramps as the most central symptom within the network structure. The correlation stability (CS) coefficient of strength centrality was 0.749, indicating adequate stability, whereas closeness and betweenness centralities were unstable (CS-coefficient = 0.00) and were therefore not interpreted. Conclusion: MHD patients experience multiple co-occurring symptom clusters, with muscle cramps identified as the most central symptom in the symptom network and fatigue representing the most severe and second most prevalent symptom. These findings highlight the importance of prioritizing interventions targeting muscle cramps, fatigue, and other high-strength symptoms. Healthcare professionals should develop tailored, symptom-specific management strategies to effectively alleviate symptom burden and enhance clinical outcomes in MHD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.