MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4287957210

Continual Long-Term Physiotherapy After Stroke: A Health Technology Assessment.

2020· article· en· W4287957210 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)MedicinePhysical therapyEconomic evaluationRehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a serious health issue in which an interruption in blood flow to any part of the brain damages brain cells. About 83% of people survive with substantial morbidity after their first stroke. We conducted a health technology assessment of continual long-term physiotherapy for people with a diagnosis of stroke, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy for people with a diagnosis of stroke, and patient preferences and values. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We also performed a systematic literature search of the economic evidence. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because there was insufficient clinical evidence. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke, we spoke with people who had been diagnosed with stroke, as well as their caregivers. RESULTS: We did not find any published studies that met the specific clinical inclusion criteria. We did not identify any studies that compared the cost-effectiveness of continual long-term versus short-term physiotherapy after stroke. The budget impact of publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from $445,000 in year 1 at an uptake rate of 8% to $888,000 in year 5 at an uptake rate of 16%. The people who had been diagnosed with stroke with whom we spoke reported that they had benefitted from continual long-term physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify studies that addressed the specific research question. Based on the clinical evidence review, we are unable to determine the benefits of continual long-term compared with short-term physiotherapy after stroke. The cost-effectiveness of continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario is unknown. We estimate that publicly funding continual long-term physiotherapy after stroke in Ontario would result in additional costs of between $445,000 and $888,000 annually over the next 5 years. Patients and caregivers who we spoke with felt that patients who have experienced a stroke should be able to continue with physiotherapy.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0160.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→