Rehabilitation Interventions for the Management of Multiple Sclerosis Relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review was undertaken to identify and summarize the existing evidence regarding postrelapse rehabilitation interventions in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: Literature searches were conducted within the following databases: CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MEDLINE via Ovid, and PsycINFO via CSA Illumina. The following terms were searched as subject headings or keywords: choice behavior, counseling, decision making, disease management, health education, health promotion, patient education, patient participation, patient satisfaction, psychotherapy, rehabilitation, self-care, self-management. Then these searches were combined with the subject headings for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and subject heading or keywords for recurrence/relapse. Through the initial database search and additional citation search, 260 potentially relevant citations were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts as well as the citation search results, the reviewers agreed to keep five studies for the full-text reviews. Three rehabilitation intervention studies were included in the final review. RESULTS: A combined total of 145 adults who experienced a relapse within the previous 5 months received 3 to 18 days of rehabilitation. All three studies suggested the benefit of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for individuals with MS to improve impairment or disability. CONCLUSIONS: The three multidisciplinary rehabilitation interventions included in this review appear to be effective in improving impairment or disability of people with MS who experienced a relapse. Given the limited number of studies and their methodological limitations, the results must be interpreted cautiously. Further investigation is needed to better understand the rehabilitation needs of people with MS after relapse in order to improve research and care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".