Rehabilitation in Patients with Dementia Following Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Best rehabilitation practices after hip fracture for people with dementia have not been established. A systematic review was conducted to determine current evidence for rehabilitation in this population, including residents in continuing care. METHODS: Standardized review methodology was used to search eight databases for literature on hip-fracture rehabilitation for people with dementia. Eligible studies included participants with dementia who had a hip fracture; performed a rehabilitation intervention; and evaluated one or more of function, ambulation, discharge location, or falls. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess validity. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were included: five randomized controlled trials (RCTs), seven prospective cohort series, and one retrospective cohort study. Average quality ratings for RCTs and cohort studies were good and fair respectively. Participants with mild to moderate dementia receiving rehabilitation showed similar relative gains in function to those without dementia. Only one study examined the effect of rehabilitation among residents in continuing care. CONCLUSIONS: People with mild or moderate dementia may show improved function and ambulation and decreased fall risk after rehabilitation post hip fracture, similar to gains achieved by those without dementia. More research is required to ascertain the effect of rehabilitation in people with moderate to severe dementia, including those residing in continuing-care settings. People with mild or moderate dementia may show improved function and ambulation and decreased fall risk after rehabilitation post hip fracture, similar to gains achieved by those without dementia. More research is required to ascertain the effect of rehabilitation in people with moderate to severe dementia, including those residing in continuing-care settings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".