The effect of exercise interventions on gait outcomes in subacute and chronic rehabilitation from lower-limb amputation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful walking is a substantial contributor to quality of life in people with lower-limb amputation (PLLA), yet gait difficulties are common. Evidence-based exercise guidelines are necessary for PLLA with different clinical characteristics and at different phases of recovery. To systematically review the literature evaluating effects of exercise interventions on gait outcomes in PLLA at subacute and chronic stages of recovery. Databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched (inception to May 10, 2022). Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials assessing gait outcomes following exercise intervention; subjects were PLLA ≥18 years of age and used a prosthesis for walking. Meta-analysis using random effects with inverse variance to generate standardized mean differences (SMDs) was completed for primary gait outcomes. Subgroup analysis was conducted for the recovery phase (i.e., subacute and chronic) and level of amputation (e.g., transfemoral and transtibial). Of 16 included articles, 4 studies examined the subacute phase of recovery, whereas 12 examined the chronic phase. Subacute interventions were 30 minutes, 1-7 times/week, for 2-12 weeks. Chronic interventions were 15-60-minutes, 2-3 times/week, for 4-16 weeks. Low-moderate level evidence was shown for a small improvement in the subacute phase (SMD = 0.42, 95% confidence interval [0.06-0.79], I 2 = 46.0%) and a moderate improvement in the chronic phase (SMD = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [0.40-0.94], I 2 = 0.0%) in favor of exercise intervention groups. Multicomponent exercise programs consisting of gait, balance, and strength training are effective at improving gait outcomes in PLLA at subacute and chronic phases of recovery. The optimal duration and frequency of exercise is unclear because of variation between interventions, highlighting an area for future work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".