Post-sternotomy movement strategies in adults: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Post-sternotomy movement strategies for adults should be an evidence-informed approach and support a safe, independent return to daily activity. Recent new movement strategies have emerged. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize the available evidence for post-sternotomy movement strategies in adults. METHODS AND RESULTS: The electronic databases searched included MEDLINE, Embase, Sport Discus, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PEDro. The search did not have a date limit. After 2405 duplicates were removed, 2978 records were screened, and 12 were included; an additional 2 studies were identified through reference searching for a total of 14 included studies. A data extraction table was used, and the findings are summarized in a tabular and narrative form. Three post-sternotomy movement strategies were identified in the literature: sternal precautions (SP), modified SP, and Keep Your Move in the Tube (KYMITT™). The authors suggested that the practice of SP was based on expert opinion and not founded in evidence. However, the evidence from the identified articles suggested that new movement strategies are safe and allow patients to choose an increased level of activity that promotes improved functional status and confidence. CONCLUSION: More prospective cohort studies and multi-centred randomized control trials are needed; however, the current evidence suggests that modified SP and KYMITT™ are as safe as SP and can promote a patient-centred approach. REGISTRATION: University of Calgary's Digital Repository PRISM http://hdl.handle.net/1880/115439.
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".