MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026323099 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v3i1.33931

THE USE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY OUTCOMES IN REHABILITATION INTERVENTIONS FOR LOWER LIMB AMPUTEES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2020· review· en· W3026323099 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Alexander Jamieson, Laura Murray, Arjan Buis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Strathclyde
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychological interventionPhysical therapyMedicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interventions which have focused on improving the physical activity of individuals with lower limb amputation can be mostly categorized into behavioural-based and prosthetic-based interventions. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of these interventions, and to identify the key gaps in research in this field. METHODOLOGY: The databases of Scopus, Pubmed, Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched between September and December of 2019 for articles relating to physical activity, amputees and interventions. Articles were assessed quantitively based on internal validity, external validity and intervention intensity. FINDINGS: Sixteen articles (5 behavioural, 11 prosthetic) were assessed. Both approaches had comparable methodological quality and mixed efficacy for producing a significant change in physical activity outcomes. Almost all interventions used a simplistic measurement of activity as their outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There is an insufficient amount of studies to assess the overall efficacy of behavioural interventions in regard to how they impact on physical activity behaviour. However, the increase of quality of the methodology in the more recent studies could indicate that future interventions will retain similar levels of quality. Prosthetic interventions have shown no major improvement in efficacy compared to similar reviews and may need to utilise more advanced prosthetic components to attain significant changes in physical activity. Activity outcomes should expand into more complex activity measurements to properly understand the physical activity profile of people with lower limb amputation. Layman’s Abstract: The purpose of this review was to identify original research which tried to improve the physical activity behaviours of individuals with lower extremity amputation. Through multiple databases, the review article identified a mixture of 5 behavioural and 11 prosthetic-based interventions which aligned with the search criteria of the review. The behavioural-based interventions used behavioural change techniques controlled by healthcare professionals to try and promote a change in physical activity behaviours. The prosthetic-based interventions employed a prosthetic component, with the intention being that if the prosthetic component had superior design, the individual would feel more encouraged to be physically active. This review article concludes that, prosthetic interventions do not appear to have a consistent significant impact on the physical activity behaviours, and though behavioural interventions also had mixed efficacy, there were not enough interventions of their design to make a conclusive statement. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/33931/26330 How To Cite: Jamieson A.G., Murray L., Buis A. The use of physical activity outcomes in rehabilitation interventions for lower limb amputees: A systematic review. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2020;Volume3, Issue1, No.2. https://doi.org/ 10.33137/cpoj.v3i1.33931 Corresponding Author: Dr. Arjan Buis,Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Wolfson Centre, 106 Rottenrow, Glasgow, G4 0NW, Scotland, UK.E-Mail: arjan.buis@strath.ac.ukORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3947-293X

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207