MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310044486 · doi:10.3233/ppr-210597

Proprioception assessment in stroke rehabilitation: A survey of Australian physiotherapists and occupational therapists

2022· article· en· W4310044486 on OpenAlexaff
Georgia Fisher, Camila Quel de Oliveira, Annie Rochette, Simon C. Gandevia, David Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Practice and Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionRehabilitationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Physical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Proprioception is the awareness of the position, movement, and muscular force generated by the body and its musculoskeletal parts, and is an important somatosensory impairment to assess in people with stroke. We know that rehabilitation clinicians self-report to assess proprioception in approximately two-thirds of people with stroke. What we do not know is what type of assessments are used, or the true frequency of their use in clinical practice. This study aimed to provide a preliminary description of the type and frequency of proprioception assessment used by clinicians working in stroke rehabilitation in Australia, and their knowledge about proprioception impairment. METHODS: We surveyed Australian physiotherapists and occupational therapists who were involved in the rehabilitation of people with stroke. The online cross-sectional survey ran from March to October 2020. While they were blind to the aims of the study, respondents answered questions about clinical decision-making in a case study of a person with stroke and proprioception impairment. Then, they were asked questions about proprioception. RESULTS: There was a total of 165 survey responses, of which 58 contained complete datasets suitable for analysis. Only 55% ( n = 32) of respondents selected an assessment of proprioception for the person described in the case study. The majority of respondents defined proprioception to be the sense of joint / limb ( n = 38, 65.5%) or body ( n = 27, 46.6%) position and used ‘eyeball’ judgements of limb matching accuracy (56%, n = 33) as an assessment. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data suggest that proprioception is likely under-assessed in stroke rehabilitation and that clinicians understand proprioception to be the sense of joint position and movement, but lack awareness of other proprioceptive senses, such as the sense of muscle force. These factors may reduce the ability of clinicians to rehabilitate proprioception impairment in people with stroke.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.414 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venuePhysiotherapy Practice and ResearchSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207