MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384663554 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2023.2236016

Moving from the clinic to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic – a pilot clinical trial comparing in-clinic rehabilitation versus telerehabilitation for persisting symptoms following a mild Traumatic brain injury

2023· article· en· W4384663554 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Langevin, Pierre Frémont, Philippe Fait, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Jean‐Sébastien Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresIntertek (Canada)
FundersRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation
KeywordsTelerehabilitationTelehealthPhysical therapyMedicineConcussionRehabilitationNeck painRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTelemedicinePoison controlInjury preventionHealth careMedical emergencyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The objective of this study was to compare the effects of an in-clinic cervicovestibular rehabilitation program (education, home exercises, manual techniques, sub-symptom threshold aerobic exercise [STAE] program) to a similar program (education, home-exercises, STAE program), but without manual techniques, provided in a telerehabilitation format in adults with persisting post-concussion symptoms (PCS).Materials and methods design In this parallel-group non-randomized clinical trial, 41 adults with persisting PCS were allocated to the in-clinic (n = 30) or telerehabilitation (n = 11) program. The outcome measures, which included the Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS; primary outcome), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for neck pain and headache and three disability questionnaires, were collected at baseline, weeks 6, 12, and 26. Non-parametric analysis for longitudinal data (NparLD) was used.Results For the PCSS, there was a group-by-time interaction (p = 0.05) with significant between-group differences at week 6, 12, and 26 (p < 0.05) for the in-clinic group. There were also group-by-time interactions for NPRS neck pain and headache (p < 0.05) for the in-clinic group.Conclusion The study suggests that a telehealth format failed to reach the efficiency of an in-clinic rehabilitation program in terms of symptoms reduction and functional improvement. These results must be interpreted with caution given the limited number of participants. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03677661.IMPLICATION FOR REHABILITATIONThe telerehabilitation format for adults with persisting post-concussion symptoms was widely implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic without any evidence of efficacy over the more traditional in-clinic rehabilitation format.The study suggests that a telerehabilitation format failed to reach the efficiency of an in-clinic rehabilitation program in terms of symptoms reduction and functional improvement.Clinicians should try to incorporate some in-clinic appointments when a telerehabilitation format is required such as for patients in underserved area.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207