A Systematic Review of Outcomes Measured Following New Wheelchair and Seating-Prescription Interventions in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the outcomes and outcome-measurement tools currently used during the prescription of new wheelchairs and/or seating systems. A systematic review of studies was performed to identify outcome-measurement tools. Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from earliest available to March 2022. Study Selection: Studies were included if they focused on a new wheelchair or seating-system prescription with adults. Data Extraction: Data extraction and quality assessments were conducted by 2 reviewers; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale (for randomized controlled trials) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (for non-randomized studies). Data Synthesis: 48 articles were included which identified 37 standardized outcome-measurement tools. Use of study-specific outcome-measurement tools was common. Wheelchair use, user satisfaction, activity, and participation were the most studied outcome domains. Commonly used standardized assessments included the QUEST 2.0, functional independence measure, WHODAS II, IPPA, and PIADS. Conclusion: Outcome measures to evaluate wheelchair and seating-system prescription vary, and the use of study-specific outcome-measurement tools is high. There is a need to choose consistent outcome measures that are reliable and valid, and deal with this complex area through ensuring carefully constructed study designs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".