Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36679672›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Current Technology Developments Can Improve the Quality of Research and Level of Evidence for Rehabilitation Interventions: A Narrative Review.

Bruno Bonnechère, Annick Timmermans, Sarah Michiels

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Empowering sickle cell disease care: the rise ofFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bruno BonnechèreREVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7729-4700
Annick TimmermansREVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5461-947X
Sarah MichielsREVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current important limitations to the implementation of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in the rehabilitation field are related to the validation process of interventions. Indeed, most of the strict guidelines that have been developed for the validation of new drugs (i.e., double or triple blinded, strict control of the doses and intensity) cannot-or can only partially-be applied in rehabilitation. Well-powered, high-quality randomized controlled trials are more difficult to organize in rehabilitation (e.g., longer duration of the intervention in rehabilitation, more difficult to standardize the intervention compared to drug validation studies, limited funding since not sponsored by big pharma companies), which reduces the possibility of conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as currently high levels of evidence are sparse. The current limitations of EBP in rehabilitation are presented in this narrative review, and innovative solutions are suggested, such as technology-supported rehabilitation systems, continuous assessment, pragmatic trials, rehabilitation treatment specification systems, and advanced statistical methods, to tackle the current limitations. The development and implementation of new technologies can increase the quality of research and the level of evidence supporting rehabilitation, provided some adaptations are made to our research methodology.

Indexed as

Industrial DevelopmentRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designmethodsnew technologyrehabilitationstudy designvalidation

Identifiers

PMID36679672
PMCPMC9866361

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.