Search

Emerging technologies such as robotics and virtual reality (VR) are being trialled and implemented into physiotherapy practice. As emerging technologies compete for market share, trials on emerging technologies are at risk of spin. For consumers to make informed decisions about whether to use a new technology, trials should accurately portray the results. If spin is present, outcomes may not be comparable to the results reported when interventions are implemented clinically. To determine the amount and type of spin in abstracts of physiotherapy clinical trials that use robotic or VR interventions. A secondary objective is to determine the agreement between raters, both experienced and inexperienced, using an existing 7-item checklist with updated item definitions. We will perform two meta-research reviews on a random set of 100 robotics (study 1) and 100 VR (study 2) trials, from any year, indexed in the PEDro database. Using the updated spin checklist, the abstract of each trial will be assessed in corroboration with full-text. The total spin score and proportion of studies with spin for each item will be reported. Agreement between experienced and inexperienced raters will be determined using kappa statistics. Rater confidence in rating each item will be collected. We will identify if spin is present in robotics and VR literature and evaluate if the spin checklist can be confidently and consistently used by raters. We hope this research will facilitate best-practice reporting of research findings so emerging technologies will be implemented with realistic expectation of clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary objective: Rehabilitation scales following neurological injury can be useful for monitoring patient progress. However, too often, rehabilitation scales are administered unnecessarily placing an extra burden on clinicians and patients. The primary objective was to reduce redundant testing by providing guidelines for the concurrent use of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Early Functional Abilities (EFA) scales during rehabilitation in patients with brain injury. Methodology: In total, 3289 concurrent FIM and EFA scores from 929 patients were examined. We proposed, using clinically sound and operational criterion, that the FIM should be used throughout rehabilitation, EFA should be used as a supplement when the FIM is ≤36 and FIM should be administered before the EFA on each testing occasion. Results: Around 24% of patients should be measured with the FIM and EFA throughout rehabilitation, 35% of patients should be measured with the EFA and FIM initially but not require EFA measurements when there is an increase in function and 39% of patients should only be measured with the FIM. According to these guidelines, the EFA was administered unnecessarily 53% of the time. Conclusions and implications: These guidelines ensure that the EFA is used when it is sensitive. This will optimize clinician time and minimize redundant testing, without compromising the measurement of clinical progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In some hospitals, patients exhibit significant heterogeneity of function at admission and discharge. The current study aims to assess if concurrent usage of the Early Functional Assessment (EFA) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM®) is warranted and practical in rehabilitation centers with diverse patient groups and outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study examined a data set of all patients with concurrent EFA and FIM scores admitted to a single rehabilitation center (4076 scores from 1251 patients). The patients had acquired brain injury of multiple etiologies and a range of severities. Results: The EFA scale was more able to characterize the function of lower functioning patients according to the FIM while the FIM scale was more able to characterize the function of higher functioning patients according to the EFA. This was highlighted by 21% of assessments with the lowest FIM score (18) having corresponding EFA scores of 22-76 and 27% of assessments with the highest EFA score (>90) having corresponding FIM scores of 38-126. Conclusions: In rehabilitation centers with diverse patient groups and outcomes, the FIM and EFA scale could be used to characterize the heterogeneity of function in patients with acquired brain injury. The EFA/FIM scale could be used concurrently in certain patients providing a more complete view of patients throughout the rehabilitation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]