MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002406523 · doi:10.1002/pmrj.12331

Sitting Balance Exercise Performed Using Virtual Reality Training on a Stroke Rehabilitation Inpatient Service: A Randomized Controlled Study

2020· article· en· W3002406523 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lisa Sheehy, Anne Taillon‐Hobson, Heidi Sveistrup, Martin Bilodeau, Christine Yang, Hillel M. Finestone

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsSittingPhysical therapyRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Balance (ability)TrunkSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality training (VRT) is engaging and may enhance rehabilitation intensity. Only one previous study has looked at its use to improve sitting balance after stroke. OBJECTIVE: To determine if supplemental sitting balance exercises, administered via VRT, improve control of sitting balance and upper extremity function in stroke rehabilitation inpatients. DESIGN: Assessor-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Stroke inpatient rehabilitation unit. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-six participants (out of 130 approached) with subacute stroke who could not stand independently were randomized to experimental and control groups. Sixty-nine completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group did VRT that required leaning and reaching, whereas the control group had their trunk restrained and performed VRT that involved only small upper extremity movements to minimize trunk movement. Both groups performed 10-12 sessions of 30-45 minutes. Participants were assessed pre, post, and 1 month after the sessions by a blinded examiner. OUTCOME MEASURES: Function in Sitting Test (FIST, primary outcome measure); Ottawa Sitting Scale; Reaching Performance Scale; Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). RESULTS: Thirty-three participants completed the experimental intervention and 36 the control. Pre/post differences for FIST were 3.4 (confidence interval [CI] 0.5;6.3) for the experimental group and 5.3 (2.9;7.7) for the control group. There was a significant improvement over time (adjusted for multiple comparisons, P < .006) on most outcome measures except the WMFT Performance Time Scale (control group; P = .007) and grip strength (P = .008); there were no differences between groups (P > .006). CONCLUSIONS: Siting balance outcomes were similar for both groups; therefore, this study does not support the use of sitting balance exercises provided via VRT for the rehabilitation of sitting balance after stroke. However, because it is only the second study to investigate VRT for sitting balance and upper extremity function, more research, using more challenging exercises and a greater treatment intensity, is required before definitive conclusions are made.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207