Rehabilitation Approaches and Strategies in the Management of Adult Patients Following Pelvic Fractures: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pelvic fractures can lead to disability and a poor health-related quality of life, thereby contributing to the burden of disease in South Africa. Rehabilitation plays an important role in improving the functional outcomes in patients with pelvic fractures. However, there is limited published research that presents optimal interventions and guidelines to improve outcomes in affected individuals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine and map the range of and gaps in rehabilitation approaches and strategies used by health care professionals globally in the management of adult patients with pelvic fractures. METHODS: The synthesis of evidence will follow the framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and supported by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The identification of research questions; the identification of relevant studies; the selection of eligible studies; charting data; collating, summarizing, and reporting of the results; and consultation with relevant stakeholders will be undertaken. Peer-reviewed articles written in English; from quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies; and searched through Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library will be considered. Studies eligible for selection will be full-text articles written in English about adult patients with pelvic fractures. Studies on children with pelvic fractures and on interventions following pathological pelvic fractures as well as opinion papers and commentaries will be excluded from the study. Rayyan software will be used for title and abstract screening to determine inclusion in the study and to improve collaboration between the reviewers. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (version 2018) will be used to appraise the quality of the studies. RESULTS: This protocol will guide a scoping review to examine and map the range of and gaps in rehabilitation approaches and strategies used by health care professionals globally in the management of adult patients with pelvic fractures, irrespective of level of care. Impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions in patients with pelvic fractures will be highlighted, which will give an indication of the rehabilitation needs of the affected individuals. Results of this review might provide evidence for health care professionals, policy makers, and scholars to aid rehabilitative care and further integration of patients into health care systems and community. CONCLUSIONS: The rehabilitation needs of patients with pelvic fractures will be drawn from this review and will be presented in a flow diagram. Rehabilitation approaches and strategies in the management of patients with pelvic fractures will be identified to guide health care professionals in the promotion of quality health care for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/k6eg8; https://osf.io/k6eg8. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/38884.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".