Inpatient versus home-based rehabilitation for older adults with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize available evidence to compare the outcomes of home-based rehabilitation to inpatient rehabilitation for older patients with musculoskeletal conditions. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles published prior to August 2011 were identified using MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. REVIEW METHODS: English-language articles that compared patient outcomes of home-based and inpatient rehabilitation for older adults were included. Outpatient care was not included as home-based or inpatient rehabilitation. Methodological quality of included studies was evaluated by two reviewers using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: A systematic search yielded eight randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies. Older adults who received rehabilitation in the home had equal or higher gains than the inpatient group in function, cognition, and quality of life; they also reported higher satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Home-based rehabilitation may be an effective alternative for treating older patients with musculoskeletal conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".