Methods of Evidence-based medicine for patients after stroke with early Spasticity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
аcute cerebrovascular accident is the main cause of disability. Stroke has different clinical characteristics and consequences that require individual rehabilitation examination and approach. Adverse neurological disorders are accompanied by motor, cognitive, and psycho-emotional consequences. Over the past 20 years, the treatment of acute cerebrovascular accidents has significantly increased the recovery rates of patients. This is due to the progress of international clinical protocols, randomized evidence-based medicine, adequate medication, step-by-step and individualized physical therapy, and occupational therapy strategies for patients. One of the most important contributions to rehabilitation for stroke patients is made by evidence-based medicine. The literature review highlights current evidence and critical appraisal to confirm the effectiveness of evidence-based medicine in rehabilitation interventions to improve movement control, activity, participation, and functioning. The benefits of rehabilitation interventions on spasticity after stroke in the early period have been proven. However, even after medical and rehabilitation, the restoration of motor function remains insufficient to achieve the patient's request, due to inconsistent application of evidence-based medicine. The purpose of the literature review is to analyze the effectiveness of evidence-based medicine in rehabilitation interventions for people after early stroke with spasticity to improve quality of life and motor function. Materials and methods. In this review, we analyzed rehabilitation interventions and evidence-based medicine in physical therapy. We substantiated the materials of the Canadian Clinician's Guide to Stroke Rehabilitation for 2020. The review includes scientific publications in English. Articles and research by scientists published over the past 15 years. A computer search was conducted through the PubMed database. We considered 63 publications that were evaluated according to the following criteria: reliability, validity, and measurability. The changes that have occurred during the research have been analyzed. Conclusions. Spasticity in the late period after acute cerebrovascular accident has significant negative consequential difficulties that patients are unable to cope with on their own. We have found that rehabilitation measures and physical therapy techniques improve the motor functions of patients with spasticity in the early period, provided that the recommendations of evidence-based medicine are followed. The timely use of methods, tools, and an individualized approach to each patient gives positive results. After all, the purpose of physical therapy is not to convince patients that the consequences of stroke are not subject to rehabilitation, but to help and teach patients to be independent and improve the quality of life of people with spasticity in the early or late period. It was also determined that the topic of recovery of patients with late-onset spasticity after stroke is not sufficiently covered. To date, more than half of people after stroke remain limited in everyday activities and have negative consequences - motor disorders, and activity limitations that significantly affect the quality of life and independence. Further research is needed to determine whether it is possible to reduce late-onset spasticity and improve the motor function of patients after stroke with the possibility of further use of the affected limb.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».