Computational protocol: Effects of listening to Holy Qur’an recitation and physical training on dialysis efficacy, functional capacity, and psychosocial outcomes in elderly patients undergoing haemodialysis

Similar protocols

Protocol publication

[…] The Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to evaluate self-reported health status []. This survey has 36 items compiled into eight scales: physical functioning (PF), role functioning/physical (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social functioning (SF), role functioning/emotional (RE), and mental health (MH). These scales range from 0 to 100; a higher score indicates a better quality of life (i.e. less pain or less limitation). Normalized scores representing overall physical functioning and mental functioning are calculated from the individual scales and are presented as the physical component summary (PCS) and the mental component summary (MCS). The PCS includes the dimensions of PF, RP, BP, GH, VT, and SF. The MCS is composed of the RE and MH, along with elements of the GH, VT, and SF scales []. The surveys were completed independently during dialysis by those patients capable of doing so. Patients unable to complete them independently because of vision or language problems were assisted by the study staff. [...] Statistical analyses were carried out using Statistica Software 10.0 for Windows (StatSoft, Maisons-Alfort, France). Data are presented as mean and standard deviation (± SD). Assumptions of distributional normality were tested using the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. Relative changes (%) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each measured variable. Data were analysed using a mixed-measures (Group × Period) analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures. If a significant effect was found, a post-hoc comparison using a Bonferroni test was followed. The effect size and corresponding 95% CI of difference/change in each measured variable were calculated []. Effect sizes were interpreted as trivial (0–0.19), small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), and large (0.80 and greater) []. Data were also assessed for clinical significance using an approach based on the magnitude of changes []. For within-/between-group comparisons, the likelihood that the true values of estimated difference/change were better/beneficial, similar, or detrimental/worse than the smallest worthwhile change was calculated for each measured variable []. Quantitative chances of better/beneficial or poorer/detrimental effect were assigned as almost certainly not (< 1%), very unlikely (1–5%), unlikely (5–25%), possible (25–75%), likely (75–95%), very likely (95–99%), and almost certainly (> 99%) []. The true difference/change was assessed as unclear when the chances of having better/beneficial or poorer/detrimental scores were both above 5% []. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. […]

Pipeline specifications

Software tools Rp-Bp, Statistica
Applications Miscellaneous, Ribo-seq analysis
Organisms Homo sapiens