MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183290174 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1948116

A scoping review of current non-pharmacological treatment modalities for phantom limb pain in limb amputees

2021· review· en· W3183290174 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Hyung, Catherine Wiseman‐Hakes

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModalitiesMedicineCINAHLObservational studyMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPsychological interventionSystematic reviewPhysical therapyEvidence-based practiceEvidence-based medicinePhantom limb painNeuroimagingNeuropathic painPhantom limbAmputationAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a chronic neuropathic pain condition of a missing limb following amputation. Pain management is multi-modal, including various non-pharmacological therapies. The purpose of this scoping review was to investigate the evidence surrounding current non-pharmacological treatment modalities for PLP and provide insight into their clinical feasibility. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted using four databases (Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL) following the PRISMA-ScR method. Results from papers meeting the inclusion criteria were charted to summarize findings, demographics, and use of neuroimaging. RESULTS: A total of 3387 papers were identified, and full texts of 142 eligible papers were assessed. Eleven treatment modalities for PLP were identified with varying levels of evidence. Overall, there were 25 RCTs, 58 case reports, and 59 a combination of pilot, quasi-experimental, observational, and other study designs. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the evidence surrounding most treatment modalities is limited and only a fraction of studies are supported by strong evidence. The findings of this review demonstrated a clear need to conduct more rigorous research with diverse study designs to better understand which modalities provide the most benefit and to incorporate neuroimaging to better determine the neural correlates of PLP and mechanisms of various treatments.Implications for RehabilitationPhantom limb pain (PLP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition following amputation and health care professionals should incorporate an evidence-based pain management protocol into their rehabilitation program.There exist a number of different non-pharmacological therapies to address PLP, however the scientific rigor and levels of evidence vary across modalities.Prescription of interventions for PLP should consider individual patient differences, accessibility to the patient, and quite possibly, a multi-modal approach, particularly for those who also experience residual limb pain.Imagery-based therapies provide the highest level of current evidence based on robust and large randomized control trials, are readily accessible, and are thus most recommended for relief of PLP.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0190.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207