Active Rehabilitation Following Acute Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), patients are often advised to restrict physical activity until full symptom resolution followed by gradual return to activity. However, extended rest periods may prolong recovery and contribute to persistent symptoms. Emerging evidence suggests early active rehabilitation that increases heart rate without exacerbating symptoms may improve mTBI patient recovery. This review aims to: (1) appraise evidence on active rehabilitation intervention for mTBI recovery within one-month of injury (i.e., exercise type, duration, intensity, etc.); and (2) recommend evidence-based rehabilitation protocols. Method: Pubmed, CINAHL, PsychARTICLES, SportDISCUS, and AMED databases were searched using key terms “mild Traumatic Brain Injury”, “Rehabilitation”, “Acute”, and their synonyms. Evidence was appraised using Cochrane RoB-2 and ROBINS-I. Results: 434 citations were initially identified with seven papers systematically reviewed. Within the reviewed articles, only three were randomized controlled trials with low risk of bias, and four were non-randomized trials with low to moderate risk of bias. Findings highlighted that a range of active rehabilitation protocols were used with different exercise modalities (primarily treadmills and static cycling), durations (9–20 min, or until symptomatic, for 30–50 days or symptoms resolved), and intensities (low, moderate or high). Active rehabilitation did not cause any serious adverse events (i.e., death, hospitalisation etc.), and six studies reported that it did not exacerbate mTBI symptoms in any participants (with one participant having symptom worsening in one study). Overall, the majority of reviewed studies ( n = 4) showed that active rehabilitation decreased time to mTBI symptom resolution compared to controls (strict rest/stretching exercises). Conclusions: Individualized active rehabilitation prescribed within one-month post-mTBI appears to be safe and effective at decreasing recovery time to symptom resolution in mTBI. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding specific intervention protocols that needs to be addressed before adoption within clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".