The use, parameters, safety and outcomes of physical rehabilitation for individuals with sepsis: A protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a scoping review. The aim of this scoping review is to understand the use, parameters, safety and outcomes of physical rehabilitation for individuals with sepsis. The incidence of sepsis is growing; approximately 75,000 individuals are diagnosed with sepsis each year in Canada (1). Sepsis is a life-threatening illness caused by the body’s overreaction to infection (2,3). While short-term mortality related to this condition is improving (4-6), survivors of sepsis suffer from a number of health consequences which may last for years post hospital discharge and impact health and quality of life (4,7). Poor functional status is associated with an increased risk of recurrent critical illness (4). Rehabilitation includes interventions designed to optimize functioning and reduce disability in individuals with health conditions in interaction with their environment (8). Rehabilitation improves a variety of outcomes for those living with a broad range of health conditions (9-16). There is little research available describing the use and benefit of rehabilitation for individuals with sepsis. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2018 examining rehabilitation for patients with sepsis included just two studies (17). While this review did suggest improvements in quality of life with rehabilitation compared to usual care, the certainty of this evidence was deemed ‘very low’ (17). Further, this study did not provide details describing the type or parameters of the interventions provided, the safety or feasibility of rehabilitation for individuals with sepsis, or provide stakeholder perspectives on the use of rehabilitation in this population. Research Objective: Explore the current use of physical rehabilitation for individuals with sepsis. Research Question: What literature exists describing the use, parameters, safety, and outcomes of physical rehabilitation for individuals with sepsis? Support: Funded by Sepsis Canada, who had no role in the development of this protocol. Corresponding author: Jenna Smith-Turchyn (1400 Main Street West, IAHS Rm 436, Hamilton, ON, L8S1C7) Contributions of authors: Conceptualization (JST, AN, MEK, BR); Writing original draft (CF, JST); Writing – reviewing and editing (AN, SA, SM, HO, BR, MEK, NN); Supervision (JST, MK); Funding Acquisition (JST, MEK) Author Affiliations: School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada (JST, CF, AN, SA, NN, SM, HO, MEK); Physiotherapy Department, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada (MEK); Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada (BR); Sepsis Canada (SM)
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 | 0.094 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.015 |
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".