MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4313203383 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.39023

OUTCOME MEASURES USED TO ASSESS HAND ACTIVITY IN AMPUTEE AND INTACT POPULATIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW

2022· review· en· W4313203383 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kirsty Carlyle, Sarah Day

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Mots-clésPopulationActivities of daily livingOutcome (game theory)PsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The human hand is critical in assisting with activities of daily living (ADL). Amputation of the hand can affect a person physically, socially and psychologically. Knowledge of outcome measures used to assess upper limb activity of intact and amputee populations may aid in guiding research to develop applicable measurement tools specific to the amputee population. Tools could aid developments in prosthetic design and prescription, which benefit both users and healthcare researchers. OBJECTIVE(S): This literature review examined outcome measurement tools used with non-amputee and amputee populations to assess hand activity. The objectives were to identify which characteristics of hand activity are captured by currently available measurement tools. METHODOLOGY: Searches were conducted using PubMed, Cochrane and ProQuest for studies investigating hand activity for amputee and non-amputee populations. A total of 15 studies were included. PRISMA guidelines were used to assist with study selection. Data extraction and narrative synthesis were carried out. FINDINGS: A total of 32 outcome measures were found. Frequently used tools were: Box and Block Test, Swedish Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire, and range of motion. Studies employed a combination of 2 to 12 tools. Themes extracted were: importance of function and quality of life, the need for realistic tasks, and the need for outcome measures specific of the population. CONCLUSION: There is a gap in research surrounding outcome measurement tools used to assess hand activity in the amputee population. A combination of outcome measures are required to obtain insight into the hand activities of intact and amputee populations. Function and quality of life are important aspects to consider when describing hand activity. Layman's Abstract The human hand provides important functionality to help us live our daily lives. Hands enable us to perform tasks such as turn a key, cook food, use a phone and get dressed. Amputation of the hand not only affects activities of daily living (ADL), but also mental health. Hands are often assessed by healthcare professionals but there are few measurement tools available to assess artificial hands, commonly known as prosthetic hands. Developing new measurement tools would help us learn more about how people perform tasks if they are missing a hand, or using a prosthetic hand, will benefit society. The goal of this review was to examine measurement tools that assess hand activity. The first objective was to identify which types of hand activities are captured by currently available measurement tools. This review included 15 studies and compared to find common themes. Frequently used measurement tools were: Box and Block Test, Swedish Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire, and range of motion. All studies used a combination of measurement tools. The key themes commonly found were: importance of function and quality of life to be assessed, the need for realistic tasks and the need for tools designed specifically for the population of amputees or prosthesis users. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/39023/30502 How To Cite: Carlyle K, Day S. Outcome measures used to assess hand activity in amputee and intact populations: A literature review. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.4. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.39023 Corresponding Author: Kirsty Carlyle, MEngDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.E-Mail:kirsty.carlyle@strath.ac.uk ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0291-4717

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)0,001
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
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,970
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,137
Tête enseignante GPT0,351
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · 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
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations5
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalMême sujetProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsTravaux en français237 207