Cochrane · systematic review · CD013711
Interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes
B Aledi, L, Flumignan, CDQ, Trevisani, VFM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 58.3%Ungraded 2 · 16.7%Very low 3 · 25%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Motor imaging compared to usual care for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes
Population: people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prosthesis use Motor imaging vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 8 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse events Motor imaging vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mortality – all causes Motor imaging vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Motor imaging vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mobility assessment Motor imaging vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 8 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Phantom limb pain frequency Motor imaging vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gait training protocol focused on impairment level compared to gait training protocol focused on task level for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes
Population: people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prosthesis use Gait training protocol focused on impairment level vs gait training protocol focused on task level | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse events – pain Gait training protocol focused on impairment level vs gait training protocol focused on task level | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mortality – all cause Gait training protocol focused on impairment level vs gait training protocol focused on task level | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Gait training protocol focused on impairment level vs gait training protocol focused on task level | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mobility assessment Gait training protocol focused on impairment level vs gait training protocol focused on task level | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Phantom limb pain frequency Gait training protocol focused on impairment level vs gait training protocol focused on task level | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |