MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4233693093 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000000662

In Reply

2015· letter· en· W4233693093 sur OpenAlexaff
Chelsia Gillis, Liane S. Feldman, Ann Gamsa, Francesco Carli

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnesthesiology · 2015
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrehabilitationMedicineRehabilitationCompliance (psychology)Physical therapyPreoperative carePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPsychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We thank Bordes et al. for the opportunity to clarify this point. Our results1 indicate that the compliance to the trimodal program in the first 4 weeks postsurgery was significantly higher in the prehabilitation group than in the rehabilitation group (53 vs. 31% respectively, P < 0.001). Bordes et al. thus hypothesized that the observed improvement in functional walking capacity in the prehabilitation group could be the result of a greater compliance to the postoperative program rather than the usefulness of a prehabilitation program.We would argue that the usefulness of the prehabilitation program is directly linked to the ability to maintain compliance postoperatively. Our argument is based on two main points: (1) Prehabilitation maintains functional integrity so that patients are physically capable of complying with the trimodal program postoperatively; and (2) Prehabilitation is rooted in the belief that the preoperative period is an opportune time to encourage compliance by educating and preparing patients for the tasks that need to be completed in the postoperative period.The prehabilitated patients gained, on average, +25.2 m (50.2 m) in functional walking distance before surgery; a mean difference of distance walked of approximately 40 m between groups. This preoperative difference was considered clinically and statistically significant (P < 0.001) and substantiates the impact of prehabilitation. The finding attests to successful attainment of a “buffer” (i.e., reserve) against the expected decline in physical function and overall wellbeing that is typically observed postoperatively. Moreover, a number of investigations have identified preoperative physical fitness as a predictor of surgical complications and early convalescence.2–6Compliance was tabulated subjectively, based on adherence to the entire trimodal program. The value reported is an equally weighted average among all three interventions, as prehabilitation is believed to be a work of synergy. It should be noted that the self-reported physical activity, as measured using the validated CHAMPS questionnaire, 4 weeks after surgery was not significantly different between the two groups. This implies that prehabilitated patients were more compliant with the nutrition and psychological component, rather than the exercise component, of the trimodal intervention after surgery. Although anxiety reduction strategies likely contributed to overall well-being, there is no direct link between these techniques and improvement in functional capacity. Similarly, maintenance of adequate dietary protein is essential to preserve lean body mass and therefore skeletal muscle function; however, it is generally accepted that exercise is the main anabolic stimulus and that adequate nutrition augments the effect.7–9 Adherence to the nutrition intervention after surgery may have been useful in sustaining the functional gain achieved in the preoperative period, yet unlikely to stimulate anabolic gains independent of increased exercise.Finally, the use of preoperative counseling to provide information on the expectations of surgical procedures is believed to reduce fear and anxiety and enhance postoperative recovery.10,11 It is a fundamental component of Enhanced Recovery Programs.11 Preoperative instruction that focuses on the tasks expected of the patient during the perioperative period is also believed to improve adherence to the guidelines and thus improve recovery.11–13 Prehabilitation can be perceived similarly. It is likely that patients who begin and establish a routine preoperatively find it easier to continue the routine postoperatively. Indeed, it has been found that intention increases rates of goal achievement, only in the absence of strong antagonistic habits.14 The preoperative period thus allows time to identify barriers15 and counterproductive habits early, which enables later adherence.In conclusion, we would argue that the ability of the prehabilitation group to comply with the trimodal program earlier than the rehabilitation group after surgery simply suggests that prehabilitation was implemented successfully.The authors declare no competing interests.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,055
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnesthesiologyMême sujetCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesTravaux en français237 207