Exploring the use of physical rehabilitation for sepsis survivors: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the use, parameters, safety and outcomes of physical rehabilitation for adults with sepsis. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. PARTICIPANTS: Studies were eligible for inclusion in the study if they included: (1) adults 18 and older, (2) with a previous diagnosis of sepsis, (3) using a physical rehabilitation intervention at any point of sepsis management, (4) published in English or French. PROCEDURE: We searched seven databases and screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts and performed data extraction independently and in duplicate. We summarised findings narratively using the "population, context, concept" framework and used descriptive statistics where appropriate. End-users reviewed and commented on study findings. RESULTS: We included 58 studies, representing 77 434 participants, with the majority (79%) being published in the last decade. A large proportion (36%) of physical rehabilitation interventions included exercise and were overseen by a physical therapist (41%). The parameters of the interventions varied widely. However, all interventions (100%) were hospital based and the interventions implemented appeared safe. Of the 28 studies evaluating effectiveness of the intervention, function improved in most studies (78%) following physical rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Research addressing physical rehabilitation for patients with sepsis is increasing. Physical rehabilitation appears safe and may improve functional outcomes in those with sepsis. Future research should report details of intervention parameters and evaluate rehabilitation post-hospital discharge to maximise impact on function and quality of life for sepsis survivors. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework Registries (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2EPJ6).
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 | 0.044 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".