MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P135 Lower limb muscle strength and balance in older adults with distal radius fracture: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4224319083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colin Forde, Philippa Nicolson, Charlotte Vye, Jessica C. H Pun, Warren Sheehan, Matthew L. Costa, Sarah E Lamb, David J. Keene

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBalance (ability)Physical therapyRandomized controlled trialCINAHLRehabilitationObservational studyFalls in older adultsMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHand strengthHip fractureGeriatricsSample size determinationPsychological interventionGrip strengthPoison controlInjury preventionOsteoporosisSurgeryInternal medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims Distal radius fractures (DRF) are common fall-related fragility fractures disproportionately affecting older females. After a DRF, there is an increased risk of future fragility fractures and functional decline. Systematic review evidence shows balance and muscle strengthening exercises reduce falls in older adults. Despite this, existing DRF rehabilitation trials have mainly focused on upper limb impairments. To inform rehabilitation requirements, we aimed to 1.) compare lower limb muscle strength and balance between older adults with a DRF with age- and sex-matched controls, and 2.) synthesise lower limb muscle strength and balance outcomes in older adults with a DRF. Methods We searched Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL (1990 to August 2021). We included randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, and observational studies, that assessed lower limb strength and/or balance in adults aged ≥50 years enrolled within one year after a DRF. Strength and balance had to be assessed using validated instrumented or physical performance measures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, and full-text reports of potentially eligible studies. One reviewer extracted data, then checked by another. Two reviewers independently appraised studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We synthesised results narratively due to heterogeneity. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020196274. Results Seventeen studies (10 case-control studies, three RCTs and four case-series) including 1112 participants (95% women) with a DRF were included. Participants’ mean age ranged from 56 to 73 years; median sample size was 80 (IQR 54-106). Eleven (65%) studies assessed lower limb muscle strength using 10 different methods. Knee extensor strength assessment was most common (5/11 studies) followed by the 30-second and five times sit-to-stand tests (3/11 studies). All studies assessed balance, using 14 different methods. Single leg balance assessment was most common (6/17 studies) followed by functional reach and postural sway (3/17 studies). 5/10 case-control studies assessed lower limb muscle strength. Two studies found cases performed worse than controls during sit-to-stand tests; three studies assessed knee extensor strength with conflicting findings. All case-control studies assessed balance, with cases demonstrating impaired balance compared to controls on some measures. 4/17 studies assessed strength and 6/17 studies assessed balance at multiple timepoints. Over time, strength progressively improved in 3/4 studies but changes in balance were inconsistent across studies. Conclusion There is some evidence that older adults with a DRF have impaired lower limb muscle strength and balance compared to age- and sex-matched controls, but findings are inconsistent. Synthesis of results was limited by heterogeneity in the design, quality, and assessment methods used in included studies. Large-scale robust case-control and/or prospective observational studies are needed to better establish the rehabilitation requirements for this population. Disclosure C. Forde: Grants/research support; CF is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, based at Oxford University Hospitals Trust, Oxford. P.J.A. Nicolson: Grants/research support; PN is supported by a Versus Arthritis Foundation Fellowship (ref. 22428). C. Vye: None. J.C.H. Pun: Grants/research support; JP received financial support from the NMAHPs Internship Versus Arthritis (Grant reference 22082). W. Sheehan: None. M. Costa: Grants/research support; MC receives grants from NIHR and related health charities. S.E. Lamb: Grants/research support; SL receives grants from NIHR and related health charities. D.J. Keene: Grants/research support; DK is supported by a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Postdoctoral Fellowship (ref. PDF-2016-09-056) and by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, based at Oxford University Hospitals Trust.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207