Accelerometer-Measured Inpatient Physical Activity and Associated Outcomes After Major Abdominal Surgery: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear how inpatient physical activity after major abdominal surgery affects outcomes. Accelerometer research may provide further evidence for postoperative mobilization. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the current literature evaluating the impact of accelerometer-measured postoperative physical activity on outcomes after major abdominal surgery. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar in October 2021 to conduct a systematic review. Studies were included if they used accelerometers to measure inpatient physical behaviors immediately after major abdominal surgery, defined as any nonobstetric procedures performed under general anesthesia requiring hospital admission. Studies were eligible only if they evaluated the effects of physical activity on postoperative outcomes such as postoperative complications, return of gastrointestinal function, hospital length of stay, discharge destination, and readmissions. We excluded studies involving participants aged <18 years. Risk of bias was assessed using the risk-of-bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies (RoBANS) for observational studies and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Findings were summarized by qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 15 studies. Risk of bias was high in 14 (93%) of the 15 studies. Most of the studies (11/15, 73%) had sample sizes of <100. Of the 15 studies, 13 (87%) included the general surgery population, 1 (7%) was a study of patients who had undergone gynecologic surgery, and 1 (7%) included a mixed (abdominal, thoracic, gynecologic, and orthopedic) surgical population. Of the 15 studies, 12 (80%) used consumer-grade accelerometers to measure physical behaviors. Step count was the most commonly reported physical activity outcome (12/15, 80%). In the observational studies (9/15, 60%), increased physical activity during the immediate postoperative period was associated with earlier return of gastrointestinal function, fewer surgical and pulmonary complications, shorter hospital length of stay, and fewer readmissions. In the RCTs (6/15, 40%), only 1 (17%) of the 6 studies demonstrated improved outcomes (shorter time to flatus and hospital length of stay) when a mobility-enhancing intervention was compared with usual care. Notably, mobility-enhancing interventions used in 4 (67%) of the 6 RCTs did not result in increased postoperative physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Although observational studies show strong associations between postoperative physical activity and outcomes after major abdominal surgery, RCTs have not proved the benefit of mobility-enhancing interventions compared with usual care. The overall risk of bias was high, and we could not synthesize specific recommendations for postoperative mobilization. Future research would benefit from improving study design, increasing methodologic rigor, and measuring physical behaviors beyond step counts to understand the impact of postoperative mobilization on outcomes after major abdominal surgery.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,111 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».