MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6958191259 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.27894460.v1

Additional file 1 of Effectiveness of geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient and day hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W6958191259 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueFrailty in Older Adults
Établissements canadiensUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSubgroup analysisSurvival analysisMortality rateHospital admissionStatistical analysisRisk of mortality

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Appendix 1. Search strategy. Appendix 2. Mortality at longest follow up. Fig. S2.1 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S2.2 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80 years. Fig. S2.3 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6 months. Fig. S2.4 Sensitivity analysis for mortality at longest follow up: Studies at low risk of bias from assignment to intervention. Fig. S2.5 Sensitivity analysis for mortality at longest follow up: Studies at low risk of bias from measurement of the outcome. Fig. S2.6 Subgroup analysis for mortality at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 3. Mortality at discharge. Fig. S3.1 Subgroup analysis for mortality at discharge: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S3.2 Subgroup analysis for mortality at discharge: mean age < 80 vs ≥ 80 years. Appendix 4. LTCH admission at longest follow up. Fig. S4.1 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6 months. Fig. S4.2 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80 years. Fig. S4.3 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S4.4 Sensitivity analysis: LTCH admission at longest follow up including only those at low risk of bias from assignment of intervention. Fig. S4.5 Sensitivity analysis: LTCH admission at longest follow up including only those at low risk of bias from measurement of outcome. Fig. S4.6 Subgroup analysis for LTCH admission at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 5. LTCH admission at discharge. Appendix 6. Functional status at longest follow up. Fig. S6.1 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: attrition < 10% vs. ≥ 10%. Fig. S6.2 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6 months. Fig. S6.3 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S6.4 Subgroup analysis for functional status at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 7. Functional status at discharge. Fig. S7.1 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S7.2 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S7.3 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: geriatrician in team. Fig. S7.4 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: OT in team. Fig. S7.5 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: nurse in team. Fig. S7.6 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: social worker in team. Fig. S7.7 Subgroup analysis for functional status at discharge: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 8. Functional improvement (as defined by authors) at longest follow up. Fig. S8.1 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S8.2 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: attrition < 10% vs. ≥ 10%. Fig. S8.3 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: follow up ≤ 6 months vs. > 6. Fig. S8.4 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S8.5 Subgroup analysis for functional improvement at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 9. Functional improvement (as defined by authors) at discharge. Appendix 10. Discharge home. Fig. S10.1 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: mean age < 80 vs. > 80. Fig. S10.2 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: attrition < 10% vs. > 10%. Fig. S10.3 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S10.4 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: geriatrician in team. Fig. S10.5 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: OT in team. Fig. S10.6 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: nurse in team. Fig. S10.7 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: social worker in team. Fig. S10.8 Subgroup analysis for discharge home: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 11. Remaining home at longest follow up. Fig. S11.1 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S11.2 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: attrition < 10% vs. ≥ 10%. Fig. S11.3 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: follow up < 6 vs. > 6 months. Fig. S11.4 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S11.5 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: geriatrician in team. Fig. S11.6 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: OT in team. Fig. S11.7 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: nurse in team. Fig. S11.8 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: social worker in team. Fig. S11.9 Subgroup analysis remaining home at longest follow up: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 12. Length of stay in hospital. Fig. S12.1 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: mean age < 80 vs. > 80. Fig. S12.2 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S12.3 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: geriatrician in team. Fig. S12.4 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: OT in team. Fig. S12.5 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: nurse in team. Fig. S12.6 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: social worker in team. Fig. S12.7 Subgroup analysis for length of stay: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 13. Cognition at longest follow up. Appendix 14. Mood at longest follow up. Fig. S14.1 Subgroup analysis for mood: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S14.2 Subgroup analysis for mood: follow up < 6 vs. > 6 months. Fig. S14.3 Subgroup analysis for mood: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S14.4 Subgroup analysis for mood: geriatrician in team. Fig. S14.5 Subgroup analysis for mood: OT in team. Fig. S14.6 Subgroup analysis for mood: nurse in team. Fig. S14.7 Subgroup analysis for mood: social worker in team. Fig. S14.8 Subgroup analysis for mood: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 15. Quality of life at longest follow up. Fig. S15.1 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: mean age < 80 vs. ≥ 80. Fig. S15.2 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: follow up < 6 vs. > 6 months. Fig. S15.3 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: measure of quality of life. Fig. S15.4 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: indication for rehabilitation. Fig. S15.5 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: geriatrician in team. Fig. S15.6 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: OT in team. Fig. S15.7 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: nurse in team. Fig. S15.8 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: social worker in team. Fig. S15.9 Subgroup analysis for quality of life: cognitive status in eligibility criteria. Appendix 16. Supplementary table S1: Comparison of outcome estimates with other systematic reviews of geriatric rehabilitation.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,759
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,344

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,051
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,005
Bibliométrie0,0060,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,004
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,7590,032

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 Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFigshare→Même sujetFrailty in Older Adults→Travaux en français237 207→