MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411125622 · doi:10.1016/j.burns.2025.107573

Rehabilitation of adult electrical injury survivors: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4411125622 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan Zahir, Sander L. Hitzig, Sarah Munce, Jessica E. Shiers-Hanley, Matthew Godleski, Marina B. Wasilewski

Bibliographic record

VenueBurns · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBecton Dickinson (Canada)University of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationInjury preventionPhysical therapyMedical emergencyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Electrical injuries (EIs) result in severe damage to multiple body systems and pose significant challenges for recovery, often leading to prolonged hospital stays, delayed return to work, and higher rates of mental health issues. While EI survivors face unique physical, neurological, and psychological challenges distinct from other burn injury survivors, there is a lack of research on rehabilitation specific to this population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize the available literature on what rehabilitation interventions entail for EI survivors and examine how the evidence base has evolved over time. METHODS: This scoping review followed the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Studies were identified through PsycINFO, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, AMED, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL, including CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Included articles must have focused on adult EI survivors who received rehabilitation. Year of publication, country of study, type of rehabilitation intervention, rehabilitation professionals involved, place of rehabilitation, duration and frequency of rehabilitation, outcome measures, and findings were extracted. RESULTS: 53 studies were included in this review. Our scoping review mapped the literature on rehabilitation for EI survivors, highlighting a predominant focus on physical interventions, with some recent attention to psychological and social outcomes. Most studies were case reports, showing inconsistencies in intervention characteristics and outcome reporting. CONCLUSION: The review emphasizes the need for comprehensive, multidisciplinary approaches, standardized reporting guidelines, and future research, including RCTs, to improve rehabilitation and inform clinical practice guidelines for EI survivors. By identifying gaps in knowledge and offering recommendations for future research, our review serves as a roadmap for advancing the care and treatment of EI survivors.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBurnsSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207