MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200436288 · doi:10.1097/pxr.0000000000000075

Telehealth interventions for mobility after lower limb loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021· review· en· W4200436288 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Esfandiari, William C. Miller, Anna Berardi, Sheena King, Maureen C. Ashe

Bibliographic record

VenueProsthetics and Orthotics International · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionMedicinePsycINFOMEDLINEMeta-analysisPhysical therapySystematic reviewStrictly standardized mean differenceConfidence intervalBehavior change methodsCochrane LibraryHealth carePhysical medicine and rehabilitationTelemedicineNursingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobility is a crucial component for healthy aging after lower limb loss (LLL). Telehealth technologies, for example, smart devices, are novel approaches for health programs delivery regardless of geographical boundaries. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of telehealth interventions on mobility, quality of life, and antecedents of health behavior compared with a control condition (usual care or simpler telehealth interventions with fewer number of behavior change techniques [BCTs]) for community-dwelling adults (>50 years) with an LLL and the effect of mode of delivery and BCTs used in telehealth interventions on health outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus on January 28, 2021, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Two authors independently screened records and assessed risk of bias. We conducted a narrative synthesis of evidence and, when appropriate, used the standardized mean difference (SMD) and mean difference for meta-analyses and the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for practice recommendations. RESULTS: We identified six randomized controlled trials. Telephone was the most common delivery mode (n = 3), and "instructions for performing behaviors" was the most common BCT (n = 5). Very low certainty evidence showed no changes in mobility (six studies: SMD = 0.33 [95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.08, 0.75]), quality of life (two studies: mean difference = -0.08 [95% CI = -0.30, 0.15]), and antecedents of behavior (five studies: SMD = 0.04 [95% CI = -0.28, 0.36]). CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights a knowledge gap for the effect of telehealth interventions for people with LLL. Although no promising effect was shown for telehealth interventions, very low certainty evidence precludes making a definitive clinical recommendation.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.032
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueProsthetics and Orthotics InternationalSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207