Search

Background: Researchers may be tempted to favorably distort the interpretation of their findings when reporting the abstract (i.e., spin). Spin bias overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention compared with the results shown in the full text. Objective: To assess the occurrence of spin bias and incompleteness in reporting abstracts in post-stroke upper limb (UL) rehabilitation randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: A sample of 120 post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs (indexed in PEDro database), published in English between 2012 and 2020, was included. The completeness of reporting and spin were assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) and the spin checklist. The relationship between CONSORT-A and spin checklist scores with RCT and journal characteristics was assessed. Results: CONSORT-A and spin checklist scored 5.3±2.4 (max 15-points, higher scores indicating better reporting) and 5.5±2.0 (max 7-points, higher scores indicating presence of spin), respectively; Significant differences were detected between abstract and full-text scores in the CONSORT-A checklist (p < 0.01) and the spin checklist (p < 0.01). Items of the CONSORT-A checklist in the abstracts and full text showed a fair agreement (k = 0.31), while a moderate agreement (k = 0.59) for the spin checklist was detected. Completeness of abstract was associated (R2 = 0.46) with journal Impact Factor (p < 0.01), CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.04), and abstract word number (p = 0.02). A lower spin was associated with a higher journal Impact Factor (p = 0.01) and CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs abstracts were largely incomplete showing spin. Authors, reviewers, publishers, and stakeholders should be aware of this phenomenon. Publishers should consider allowing more words in abstracts to improve the completeness of reporting abstracts. Although we have investigated only stroke

Objective. To evaluate the refusal of the prosthesis in order to highlight elements in determining the acceptance/rejection of the prosthetic devices, and its role on rehabilitation program. Methods. A literature review through a search of the database Medline for studies published between October 2007 and May 2020 using the key words "prosthesis", "limb", and "accept"*. Results. Nine studies were included. Women appear to be more concerned about discomfort in using body-powered devices and about prosthesis cosmetic appearance. Level of limb amputation was considered relevant for prosthesis rejection only for the upper limb. Children fitted with prosthesis before two years old were less likely to abandon the prosthesis, preschool children have a lower drop-out prevalence compared to adults and school-age children. Conclusions. Understating the factors for rejections is crucial for more favorable health outcomes; multiple psychological factors should be considered during the rehabilitation process of individuals with limb amputation. Rehabilitation should consider psychosocial assistance for acceptance and perception of body representation and its discrepancy with the real body.

Background: Successful rehabilitation is associated with physical, psychological, environmental, social, and personal factors based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. The influence of age has been suggested as crucial personal factors that may affect rehabilitation needs in post-stroke survivors. The aim of this study was to investigate the qualifiers of the ICF core set for stroke to detect differences in rehabilitation needs and goals between older (O, >65 years old) and younger (Y, ≤65 years old,) post-stroke individuals. Materials and methods: In this observational study, the comprehensive core set for stroke was filled during the rehabilitation period. Patient information was obtained using disability scales was translated into certain ICF categories using linking rules. Frequency, similarity, and linear regression analyses were performed for ICF qualifier profiles among Y and O patients. Results: Forty-eight ICF variables were significantly different between Y (n = 35, 46.17 ± 11.27 years old) and O (n = 35, 76.43 ± 6.77 years old) patients. Frequency analysis showed that activity of daily living and basic needs were more prevalent in O patients, whereas regaining of social role and social life were more prevalent in Y patients. The average Jaccard Index result (similarity analysis) was more homogeneous in O than in Y patients. Conclusions: ICF qualifiers are useful to design patient-centered care. Y patients have more heterogeneous needs and require more personalized program than O patients.