{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024968789013732832, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004993757802746567, 'mean_word_length': 5.217054263565892, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Issue & Opinions. Are nerve conduction studies useful for monitoring the adequacy of renal dialysis?

When hemodialysis was first used clinically, a peripheral neuropathy frequently emerged. The discovery that sufficient dialysis time would prevent the emergence of symptomatic neuropathy led to the routine use of nerve conduction studies (NCS) to monitor the „adequacy”︁ of dialysis. Modern dialysis practice has evolved since then, and the patient populationis markedly different. This report addresses the question of whether there is evidence to indicate that routine use of NCS is helpful to monitor the adequacy of present‐day dialysis. A critical review of the available literature reveals that there is insufficient evidence to allow one to answer the question. © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.