MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890427680 · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2018.08.006

Additional structured physical activity does not improve walking in older people (> 60 years) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation: a randomised trial

2018· article· en· W2890427680 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine M. Said, Meg E. Morris, Jennifer L. McGinley, Cassandra Szoeke, Barbara Workman, Danny Liew, Keith Hill, Mark Woodward, Joanne E. Wittwer, Leonid Churilov, Mary Danoudis, Julie Bernhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAustralian Physiotherapy Association
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTIONS: Among older people receiving inpatient rehabilitation, does additional supervised physical activity lead to faster self-selected gait speed at discharge? Does additional supervised physical activity lead to better mobility, function and quality of life at discharge and 6 months following discharge? DESIGN: Multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Older people (age>60years) from two Australian hospitals undergoing rehabilitation to improve mobility. INTERVENTION: Participants received multidisciplinary care, including physiotherapy. During hospital rehabilitation, the experimental group (n=99) spent additional time daily performing physical activities that emphasised upright mobility tasks; the control group (n=99) spent equal time participating in social activities. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-selected gait speed was the primary outcome at discharge and a secondary outcome at the 6-month follow-up. Timed Up and Go, De Morton Mobility Index, Functional Independence Measure and quality of life were secondary outcomes at discharge and tertiary outcomes at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The experimental group received a median of 20 additional minutes per day (IQR 15.0 to 22.5) of upright activities for a median of 16.5days (IQR 10.0 to 25.0). Gait speed did not differ between groups at discharge. Mean gait speed was 0.51m/s (SD 0.29) in the experimental group and 0.56m/s (SD 0.28) in the control group (effect size -0.06m/s, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01, p=0.096). No significant differences were detected in other secondary measures. CONCLUSION: While substantial gains in mobility were achieved by older people receiving inpatient rehabilitation, additional physical activity sessions did not lead to better walking outcomes at discharge or 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000884707. [Said CM, Morris ME, McGinley JL, Szoeke C, Workman B, Liew D, Hill KD, Woodward M, Wittwer JE, Churilov L, Danoudis M, Bernhardt J (2018) Additional structured physical activity does not improve walking in older people (> 60 years) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 237-244].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of physiotherapySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207