MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191729152 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1958930

Effectiveness of gait aid prescription for improving spatiotemporal gait parameters and associated outcomes in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3191729152 on OpenAlexaff
Den‐Ching A. Lee, Thusharika Dissanayaka, Elissa Burton, Claudia Meyer, Susan Hunter, Plaiwan Suttanon, Christina L. Ekegren, Julie C. Stout, Helen Dawes, Keith Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDementia Australia Research Foundation
KeywordsGaitBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedical prescriptionMedicineFall preventionExercise prescriptionPhysical therapyDementiaInjury preventionPoison controlDiseaseMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To integrate the evidence of gait aid prescription for improving spatiotemporal gait parameters, balance, safety, adherence to gait aid use, and reducing falls in community-dwelling older people. METHODS: Seven health databases were searched to June 2021. Experimental studies investigating gait aid prescription (provision and instruction for use) for older people, reporting gait parameters, balance, falls, and safety of or adherence to gait aid use was included. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals of gait and balance outcomes in participants at the program's last follow-up were analyzed. The safety of and adherence to gait aid use were described. RESULTS: = 555 older people). No meta-analyses could be performed. Five studies used a single gait aid instruction session. Gait aid prescription had inconsistent effects on gait velocity, and no reported benefits in reducing gait variability in older people with mobility problems or fall risks, including Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease. No study investigated gait aid prescription on falls and balance performance. Effects on safety and adherence to gait aid use were unclear. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to investigate the benefits of extensive gait aid training in older people with mobility problems, including those with dementia or high falls risk.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThere is little evidence currently addressing the benefits of gait aid prescription on gait and associated outcomes in older people with mobility problems or fall risks.Gait aid prescription yielded inconsistent effects on increasing gait velocity and did not appear to reduce gait variability in older people with mobility problems or fall risks, nor in those with Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease.Clinicians may consider using a more extensive gait aid training approach to optimize learning of safe gait patterns and gait aid use, which may produce better outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207