物理治疗师对中风后独立行走的预测准确性。

Neurorehabilitation and neural repair Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1177/15459683241270055
Marie-Claire Smith, Benjamin J Scrivener, Luke Skinner, Cathy M Stinear
{"title":"物理治疗师对中风后独立行走的预测准确性。","authors":"Marie-Claire Smith, Benjamin J Scrivener, Luke Skinner, Cathy M Stinear","doi":"10.1177/15459683241270055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of prediction tools in stroke rehabilitation research and clinical practice is increasing, but it is not clear whether these prediction tools out-perform clinician predictions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare physiotherapist predictions for independent walking with the Time to Walking Independently after STroke (TWIST) prediction tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with new lower limb weakness and unable to walk independently (Functional Ambulation Category [FAC] < 4) were recruited. At 1 week post-stroke, the treating physiotherapist was asked to predict whether their patient would achieve independent walking by 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, or 26 weeks, or remain dependent. Predictions were also made using the TWIST prediction tool, but not shared. Binary logistic regressions were conducted with the time independent walking was achieved as the dependent variable and independent variables were the physiotherapist and TWIST predictions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-one participants were included (median age 71 years, 36 [40%] female). Most participants (67 [74%]) were non-ambulatory (FAC = 0) at 1-week post-stroke. Thirty-seven physiotherapists were recruited. Physiotherapists made accurate predictions for time taken to achieve independent walking for 39 participants (43%). Prediction accuracy was not related to physiotherapist confidence or years of stroke-specific experience. TWIST out-performed physiotherapist predictions (Physiotherapists 76%-77%, TWIST 86%-88% accurate) for participants who achieved independent walking by 4, 6, and 9 weeks post-stroke. Accuracy of physiotherapist and TWIST predictions was similar for 16 and 26 weeks post-stroke.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TWIST prediction tool is more accurate than physiotherapists at predicting whether a patient will achieve independent walking by 4, 6, or 9 weeks post-stroke, but not for 16 or 26 weeks post-stroke. TWIST may be useful to inform early rehabilitation and discharge planning. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: www.anzctr.org.au Unique Identifier: ACTRN12617001434381.</p>","PeriodicalId":94158,"journal":{"name":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","volume":" ","pages":"742-751"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487864/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Physiotherapist Predictions for Independent Walking After Stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Marie-Claire Smith, Benjamin J Scrivener, Luke Skinner, Cathy M Stinear\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15459683241270055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of prediction tools in stroke rehabilitation research and clinical practice is increasing, but it is not clear whether these prediction tools out-perform clinician predictions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare physiotherapist predictions for independent walking with the Time to Walking Independently after STroke (TWIST) prediction tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with new lower limb weakness and unable to walk independently (Functional Ambulation Category [FAC] < 4) were recruited. At 1 week post-stroke, the treating physiotherapist was asked to predict whether their patient would achieve independent walking by 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, or 26 weeks, or remain dependent. Predictions were also made using the TWIST prediction tool, but not shared. Binary logistic regressions were conducted with the time independent walking was achieved as the dependent variable and independent variables were the physiotherapist and TWIST predictions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-one participants were included (median age 71 years, 36 [40%] female). Most participants (67 [74%]) were non-ambulatory (FAC = 0) at 1-week post-stroke. Thirty-seven physiotherapists were recruited. Physiotherapists made accurate predictions for time taken to achieve independent walking for 39 participants (43%). Prediction accuracy was not related to physiotherapist confidence or years of stroke-specific experience. TWIST out-performed physiotherapist predictions (Physiotherapists 76%-77%, TWIST 86%-88% accurate) for participants who achieved independent walking by 4, 6, and 9 weeks post-stroke. Accuracy of physiotherapist and TWIST predictions was similar for 16 and 26 weeks post-stroke.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TWIST prediction tool is more accurate than physiotherapists at predicting whether a patient will achieve independent walking by 4, 6, or 9 weeks post-stroke, but not for 16 or 26 weeks post-stroke. TWIST may be useful to inform early rehabilitation and discharge planning. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: www.anzctr.org.au Unique Identifier: ACTRN12617001434381.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"742-751\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487864/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683241270055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683241270055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景: 脑卒中康复研究和临床实践中预测工具的使用越来越多,但这些预测工具是否优于临床医生的预测尚不清楚:预测工具在中风康复研究和临床实践中的使用越来越多,但这些预测工具是否优于临床医生的预测尚不清楚:本研究旨在将物理治疗师预测的独立行走时间与脑卒中后独立行走时间(TWIST)预测工具进行比较:方法:招募新发下肢无力且无法独立行走(功能性行走类别 [FAC] < 4)的成年人。中风后 1 周时,物理治疗师被要求预测患者在 4、6、9、12、16 或 26 周后将实现独立行走,还是仍需依赖他人。预测还使用了 TWIST 预测工具,但不共享。以实现独立行走的时间为因变量,物理治疗师和TWIST预测为自变量,进行二元逻辑回归:共纳入 91 名参与者(中位年龄 71 岁,女性 36 [40%])。大多数参与者(67 [74%])在中风后 1 周时不能行走(FAC = 0)。招募了 37 名物理治疗师。物理治疗师准确预测了 39 名参与者(43%)实现独立行走所需的时间。预测准确率与理疗师的信心或中风专项经验年数无关。在中风后 4、6 和 9 周实现独立行走的参与者中,TWIST 的预测结果优于物理治疗师的预测结果(物理治疗师的准确率为 76%-77%,TWIST 的准确率为 86%-88%)。物理治疗师和TWIST对中风后16周和26周的预测准确率相似:TWIST预测工具在预测患者是否能在卒中后4周、6周或9周实现独立行走方面比物理治疗师更准确,但在预测卒中后16周或26周是否能实现独立行走方面则不尽相同。TWIST 可为早期康复和出院计划提供参考。临床试验注册-网址:www.anzctr.org.au 唯一标识符:ACTRN12617001434381。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accuracy of Physiotherapist Predictions for Independent Walking After Stroke.

Background: The use of prediction tools in stroke rehabilitation research and clinical practice is increasing, but it is not clear whether these prediction tools out-perform clinician predictions.

Objective: This study aimed to compare physiotherapist predictions for independent walking with the Time to Walking Independently after STroke (TWIST) prediction tool.

Methods: Adults with new lower limb weakness and unable to walk independently (Functional Ambulation Category [FAC] < 4) were recruited. At 1 week post-stroke, the treating physiotherapist was asked to predict whether their patient would achieve independent walking by 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, or 26 weeks, or remain dependent. Predictions were also made using the TWIST prediction tool, but not shared. Binary logistic regressions were conducted with the time independent walking was achieved as the dependent variable and independent variables were the physiotherapist and TWIST predictions.

Results: Ninety-one participants were included (median age 71 years, 36 [40%] female). Most participants (67 [74%]) were non-ambulatory (FAC = 0) at 1-week post-stroke. Thirty-seven physiotherapists were recruited. Physiotherapists made accurate predictions for time taken to achieve independent walking for 39 participants (43%). Prediction accuracy was not related to physiotherapist confidence or years of stroke-specific experience. TWIST out-performed physiotherapist predictions (Physiotherapists 76%-77%, TWIST 86%-88% accurate) for participants who achieved independent walking by 4, 6, and 9 weeks post-stroke. Accuracy of physiotherapist and TWIST predictions was similar for 16 and 26 weeks post-stroke.

Conclusions: The TWIST prediction tool is more accurate than physiotherapists at predicting whether a patient will achieve independent walking by 4, 6, or 9 weeks post-stroke, but not for 16 or 26 weeks post-stroke. TWIST may be useful to inform early rehabilitation and discharge planning. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: www.anzctr.org.au Unique Identifier: ACTRN12617001434381.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reinforcement Learning is Impaired in the Sub-acute Post-stroke Period. Post-Stroke Recovery in Relation to Parvalbumin-Positive Interneurons and Perineuronal Nets. Mapping Trajectories of Gait Recovery in Clinical Stroke Rehabilitation. Exploring Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Effects on Physical Outcomes in People With Parkinson's Disease: An Umbrella Evidence Mapping Review With Meta-analyses. Acute and Longitudinal Effects of Concussion on Reactive Balance in Collegiate Athletes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1