Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023
Reporting of Rehabilitation Outcomes in the Traumatic Lower Limb Amputation Literature: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ghai Shashank, Hitzig Sander L, Eberlin Lindsay, Melo Joshua, Mayo Amanda L, Blanchette Virginie, Habra Natalie, Zucker-Levin Audrey, Zidarov Diana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the outcomes reported in the rehabilitation and community literature for adults with traumatic lower limb amputation (LLA).
DATA SOURCES: The search strategy was conducted in 3 databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception to April 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: To be eligible, articles could be of any design but were required to have at least 50% adult individuals with traumatic LLA and had to report on interventions and outcomes in either a rehabilitation or community setting.
DATA EXTRACTION: The extracted outcomes were classified using Dodd's framework, which is designed for organizing research outcomes. Heterogeneity was observed in the outcome measures (OMs) used for evaluation. Two reviewers independently conducted the data extraction, which was verified by a third reviewer.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 7,834 articles screened, 47 articles reporting data on 692 individuals with traumatic LLA, met our inclusion criteria. Four core areas encompassing 355 OMs/indicators were identified: life effect (63.4%), physiological/clinical (30.1%), resource use (5.1%), and adverse events (1.4%). Physical functioning (eg, gait, mobility) was the most frequently reported outcome domain across studies, followed by nervous system outcomes (eg, pain) and psychiatric outcomes (eg, depression, anxiety). Domains such as global quality of life and role/emotional functioning were seldomly reported.
CONCLUSION: The study provides a list of outcome indicators explicitly published for adults with traumatic LLA, highlighting inconsistent reporting of outcome indicators. The lack of a standardized set of OMs is a barrier to performing meta-analyses on interventions, preventing the identification of effective care models and clinical pathways. Developing a core outcome set that includes OMs relevant to the needs of the traumatic LLA population may address these issues.
DATA SOURCES: The search strategy was conducted in 3 databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) from inception to April 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: To be eligible, articles could be of any design but were required to have at least 50% adult individuals with traumatic LLA and had to report on interventions and outcomes in either a rehabilitation or community setting.
DATA EXTRACTION: The extracted outcomes were classified using Dodd's framework, which is designed for organizing research outcomes. Heterogeneity was observed in the outcome measures (OMs) used for evaluation. Two reviewers independently conducted the data extraction, which was verified by a third reviewer.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 7,834 articles screened, 47 articles reporting data on 692 individuals with traumatic LLA, met our inclusion criteria. Four core areas encompassing 355 OMs/indicators were identified: life effect (63.4%), physiological/clinical (30.1%), resource use (5.1%), and adverse events (1.4%). Physical functioning (eg, gait, mobility) was the most frequently reported outcome domain across studies, followed by nervous system outcomes (eg, pain) and psychiatric outcomes (eg, depression, anxiety). Domains such as global quality of life and role/emotional functioning were seldomly reported.
CONCLUSION: The study provides a list of outcome indicators explicitly published for adults with traumatic LLA, highlighting inconsistent reporting of outcome indicators. The lack of a standardized set of OMs is a barrier to performing meta-analyses on interventions, preventing the identification of effective care models and clinical pathways. Developing a core outcome set that includes OMs relevant to the needs of the traumatic LLA population may address these issues.