↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for chronic kidney disease-associated restless legs syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

23 tweeters
4 Facebook pages


44 Dimensions

Readers on

290 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Interventions for chronic kidney disease-associated restless legs syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010690.pub2
Pubmed ID

Seerapani Gopaluni, Mohamed Sherif, Naim A Ahmadouk


Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is defined as the spontaneous movement of the limbs (mainly legs) associated with unpleasant, sometimes painful sensation which is relieved by moving the affected limb. Prevalence of RLS among people on dialysis has been estimated between 6.6% and 80%. RLS symptoms contribute to impaired quality of life and people with RLS are shown to have increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.Various pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been used to treat primary RLS. However, the evidence for use of these interventions in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is not well established. The agents used in the treatment of primary RLS may be limited by the side effects in people with CKD due to increased comorbidity and altered drug pharmacokinetics. The aim of this review was to critically look at the benefits, efficacy and safety of various treatment options used in the treatment of RLS in people with CKD and those undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT). We aimed to define different group characteristics based on CKD stage to assess the applicability of a particular intervention to an individual patient. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 12 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs that assessed the efficacy of an intervention for RLS in adults with CKD were eligible for inclusion. Studies investigating idiopathic RLS or RLS secondary to other causes were excluded. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We included nine studies enrolling 220 dialysis participants. Seven studies were deemed to have moderate to high risk of bias. All studies were small in size and had a short follow-up period (two to six months). Studies evaluated the effects of six different interventions against placebo or standard treatment. The interventions studied included aerobic resistance exercise, gabapentin, ropinirole, levodopa, iron dextran, and vitamins C and E (individually and in combination).Aerobic resistance exercise showed a significant reduction in severity of RLS compared to no exercise (2 studies, 48 participants: MD -7.56, 95% CI -14.20 to -0.93; I(2) = 65%), and when compared to exercise with no resistance (1 study, 24 participants: MD -11.10, 95% CI -17.11 to -5.09), however there was no significant reduction when compared to ropinirole (1 study, 22 participants): MD -0.55, 95% CI -6.41 to 5.31). There were no significant differences between aerobic resistance exercise and either no exercise or ropinirole in the physical or mental component summary scores (using the SF-36 form). Improvement in sleep quality varied. There was no significant difference in subjective sleep quality between exercise and no exercise; however one study reported a significant improvement with ropinirole compared to resistance exercise (MD 3.71, 95% CI 0.89 to 6.53). Using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale there were no significant differences between resistance exercise and no exercise, ropinirole, or exercise with no resistance. Two studies reported there were no adverse events and one study did not mention if there were any adverse events. In one study, one patient in each group dropped out but the reason for dropout was not reported. Two studies reported no adverse events and one study did not report adverse events.Gabapentin was associated with reduced RLS severity when compared to placebo or levodopa, and there was a significant improvement in sleep quality, latency and disturbance reported in one study when compared to levodopa. Three patients dropped out due to lethargy (2 patients), and drowsiness, syncope and fatigue (1 patient).Because of a short duration of action, rebound and augmentation were noted with levodopa treatment even though it conferred some benefit in reducing the symptoms of RLS. Reported adverse events were severe vomiting, agitation after caffeine intake, headaches, dry mouth, and gastrointestinal symptoms.One study (25 participants) reported iron dextran reduced the severity of RLS at weeks one and two, but not at week four. Vitamins C, E and C plus E (1 study, 60 participants) helped the symptoms of RLS with minimal side effects (nausea and dyspepsia) but more evidence is needed before any conclusions can be drawn. Given the small size of the studies and short follow-up, it can only be concluded that pharmacological interventions and intra-dialytic exercise programs have uncertain effects on RLS in haemodialysis patients. There have been no studies performed in non-dialysis CKD, peritoneal dialysis patients, or kidney transplant recipients. Further studies are warranted before any conclusions can be drawn. Aerobic resistance exercise and ropinirole may be suitable interventions for further evaluation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 288 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 22%
Student > Bachelor 47 16%
Researcher 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 74 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 16%
Psychology 14 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Other 38 13%
Unknown 82 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2020.
All research outputs
of 18,845,910 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 303,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,845,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.