Abstract
To determine the definition, foundation, practice, and development of evidence-based rehabilitation medicine (EBRM) and point out the development direction for EBRM. Retrieve the database of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China science and technology journal database (CSTJ). The search was conducted from the establishment of the database to June 2023. The key words are “rehabilitation medicine and evidence based” in Chinese and English. After reading the abstract or full text of the literature, a summary analysis is conducted to determine the definition, foundation, practice, and development of EBRM. A total of 127 articles were included. The development of 14 sub majors in EBRM are not balanced, evidence-based musculoskeletal rehabilitation medicine (EBMRM) (31 articles, mainly focuses on osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and musculoskeletal pain), evidence-based neurorehabilitation medicine (EBNM) (34 articles, mainly concentrated in stroke, traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury) and evidence-based education rehabilitation medicine (EBEDRM) (17 articles, mainly focuses on educational methodology), evidence-based nursing rehabilitation medicine (EBNRM) (2 articles), evidence-based engineering rehabilitation medicine (EBENRM) (7 articles), evidence-based traditional Chinese rehabilitation medicine (EBTCRM) (3 articles), evidence-based internal rehabilitation medicine (EBIRM) (11 articles), evidence-based intensive care rehabilitation medicine (EBICRM) (4 articles), evidence-based oncology rehabilitation medicine (EBORM) (6 articles), evidence-based physical therapy medicine (EBPTM) (3 articles), evidence-based cardiopulmonary rehabilitation medicine (EBCRM) (6 articles), evidence-based speech therapy medicine (EBSTM)/evidence-based occupation therapy medicine (EBOTM)/evidence-based geriatric rehabilitation medicine (EBGRM) (1 article). The EBMRM, EBNM and EBEDRM are relatively well developed. The development of EBNRM, EBENRM, EBTCRM, EBIRM, EBICRM, EBGRM, EBORM, EBCRM, EBPTM, EBSTM and EBOTM is relatively slow, indicating these eleven fields should be pay more attention in future.
Introduction
Evidence-based rehabilitation medicine (EBRM) has emerged alongside the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM). As a branch of rehabilitation medicine (RM), EBRM integrates the latest research evidence, clinical experience, and patient values to provide robust support for rehabilitation treatment decisions [1]. However, up to this point, there is no explicit definition of EBRM, and the foundation of the development remains unclear. The practical implementation is also lacking a systematic approach, and the future and development of the discipline are yet to be determined. Therefore, this article intends to explore these issues.
Definition of evidence-based and EBM, RM and EBRM
Definition of evidence-based and EBM
The term “evidence-based” is derived from the Latin word “experiri,” meaning to strive, attempt, find out, prove, experience, test, or accept testing [2]. It implies making decisions or taking actions based on evidence and experience. In the field of medicine, the concept of evidence-based gradually evolved into EBM. EBM originated in the early 1990s, initially focusing on educating clinical physicians to understand and utilize published literature for optimizing clinical care, including the scientific methodology of systematic reviews. Over time, there was an increasing recognition of the limitations of evidence itself, and a growing emphasis on integrating the assessment of evidence with patient values and preferences through shared decision-making [3]. As described by Dr. Sackett, EBM is defined as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisionss about the care of individual patients, while also taking into account the clinician’s expertise, patient preferences, and values [4].
Definition of RM and EBRM
RM is a unique medical discipline that focuses on restoring and enhancing functional ability and quality of life for individuals with disabilities or impairments caused by various conditions. It encompasses a wide range of interventions, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and psychological support.
However, currently, there is no specific and explicit definition of EBRM. Building on the principles of EBM, we propose that EBRM, could be defined as a branch of RM, applies the principles of EBM to the field of rehabilitation. It involves the integration of the latest research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values to inform and guide rehabilitation treatment decisions. EBRM emphasizes the use of high-quality evidence to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of rehabilitation interventions, while considering individual patient values and preferences. The differences between RM/EBRM and EBM/EBRM are detailed in Table 1.
Differences between rehabilitation medicine (RM)/Evidence-based rehabilitation medicine (EBRM) and Evidence-based medicine (EBM)/EBRM.
| Focus | RM vs. EBRM | EBM vs. EBRM |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence source | Laboratory/human trials | Human tirals |
| Evidence collection | Not systematic/systematic | Systematic |
| Evidence evaluation | Neglect/mandatory steps | Mandatory steps |
| Evidence updated | Little or no/usually 1–2 times per year | Usually 1–2 times per year |
| Evidence recommendation | Little or no/mandatory steps | Mandatory steps |
| Evidence effectiveness | Function at a certain time node/function at a certain endpoint | Disease/Function |
| Evidence basis | Basic research/clinical research | Clinical research |
| Evidence mode | Researcher-led/patient-led | Patient-led |
Quality and recommended strength of evidence of EBRM
EBRM relies on the quality and recommended strength of evidence as important considerations for guiding rehabilitation practices. The quality of evidence refers to the reliability and credibility of the evidence. Commonly used tools for assessing evidence quality including GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) [5, 6] (see Supplementary Table 1) and OCEBM2011 (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence) [7] (see Supplementary Table 2).
The recommended strength takes into account factors such as evidence quality, treatment effects, side effects, and patient values. Commonly used tools for determining recommended strength including GRADE [6] (see Supplementary Table 1), SORT (Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy Grade) [8] (see Supplementary Table 3), and OCEBM 2009 [9] (see Supplementary Table 4). Since EBRM is derived from EBM, it is not necessary to develop separate tools for evidence grading and recommended strength specific to EBRM.
Fundamentals, principles and practice of EBRM
Fundamentals of EBRM
High-value, standardized, and well-designed clinical research serves as the foundation for practicing of EBM [10]. High-quality systematic reviews empower the development of EBRM [11], [12], [13]. Clinical practice guidelines contribute to optimizing rehabilitation treatments for patients [14, 15]. The basis of evidence-based practice lies in the integration of values and preferences of patients [16, 17], expertise of healthcare professional [18] and the best available evidences [19], collectively providing information for clinical decision-making [20]. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence expand the evidence and knowledge of treatments [21]. Updating knowledge enhances clinical skills and enables better provision of evidence-based strategies for patients. Therefore, we propose that EBRM should encompass at least five fundamentals, referred to as the “SCVPU” elements: Systematic review, Clinical practice guidelines, Values of patients, Preferences of patients, and Updated knowledge.
Principles and practice of EBRM
EBM is typically regarded as following the “5A” approach: Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply, and Assess [22]. The first “Appraise” pertains to evaluating the evidence, while the second “Assess” pertains to evaluating outcomes. Since functional assessment is integral to rehabilitation, so the “Assess” of outcomes in EBRM is actually the evaluation of effects of rehabilitation. Due to the continuous updating of knowledge is one of an important element, EBRM should have 6 basic principles, also known as the “6A” principle, namely Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply, Assess, and Advance (As seen in Table 2).
Six steps and principles of Evidence-based rehabilitation medicine (EBRM).
| Steps | Principles | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ask | Formulate clinical questions based on patient needs |
| 2 | Acquire | Retrieve relevant and up-to-date evidence |
| 3 | Appraise | Critically evaluate the quality and relevance of evidence |
| 4 | Apply | Apply the evidence to clinical decision-making |
| 5 | Assess | Evaluate the outcomes of rehabilitation interventions |
| 6 | Advance | Engage in continuous learning and improvement |
The development, practical process, and future of EBRM
The development of EBRM from micro and macro perspectives
Micro rehabilitation medicine (Micro RM), also known as traditional RM, refers to non-systematic RM that primarily focuses on theoretical research in the field of rehabilitation. The discipline includes sixteen subfields: rehabilitation assessment, occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, rehabilitation engineering, psychological rehabilitation, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, neurological rehabilitation, orthopedic rehabilitation, internal medicine rehabilitation, geriatric rehabilitation, community rehabilitation, traditional Chinese medicine rehabilitation, educational rehabilitation, pediatric rehabilitation and rehabilitation nursing.
Macro rehabilitation medicine (Macro RM), also known as EBRM, on the other hand, represents systematic RM that emphasizes the evidence-based practice of RM. The discipline includes fourteen sub-fields: evidence-based education rehabilitation medicine (EBEDRM), evidence-based nursing rehabilitation medicine (EBNRM), evidence-based engineering rehabilitation medicine (EBENRM), evidence-based musculoskeletal rehabilitation medicine (EBMRM), evidence-based neurorehabilitation medicine (EBNM), evidence-based traditional Chinese rehabilitation medicine (EBTCRM), evidence-based internal rehabilitation medicine (EBIRM), evidence-based intensive care rehabilitation medicine (EBICRM), evidence-based geriatric rehabilitation medicine (EBGRM), evidence-based oncology rehabilitation medicine (EBORM), evidence-based cardiopulmonary rehabilitation medicine (EBCRM), evidence-based physical therapy medicine (EBPTM), evidence-based speech therapy medicine (EBSTM) and evidence-based occupation therapy medicine (EBOTM).
Based on the above perspectives, we propose a conceptual framework for the development of the EBRM discipline, as shown in Figure 1.
Conceptual framework for the development of evidence-based rehabilitation medicine (EBRM) discipline. EBM, evidence-based medicine; RM, rehabilitation medicine.
The development of EBRM from the perspective of ICF
The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) is a framework that views health as a comprehensive concept beyond the mere focus on disease or bodily impairment. From the perspective of the ICF, the development of EBRM and its future direction can be seen through the following four trends: personalized rehabilitation [23], multidisciplinary cooperation and comprehensive rehabilitation [24, 25], community rehabilitation and environmental optimization [26, 27]. These trends align with the principles and framework of the ICF, which emphasizes a holistic perspective on health and functioning.
The development of EBRM from the perspective of rehabilitation education
From the perspective of rehabilitation education, the development of EBRM plays a crucial role in driving advancements in this field. Internationally, evidence-based practice is recognized as a fundamental element of healthcare professional education [28]. However, existing research in rehabilitation education has predominantly focused on patient care and medical knowledge competencies and in the musculoskeletal and pain medicine content category [29]. There is limited exploration of how existing rehabilitation education can be reformed and developed to cultivate rehabilitation professionals with EBRM thinking and research capabilities.
We believe that the development of EBRM will have the following five impacts in the field of rehabilitation education: update of teaching content, improvement of teaching methods, cultivation of research skills, awareness of interdisciplinary collaboration, emphasis on lifelong learning. By incorporating these impacts into rehabilitation education, professionals will be equipped with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to practice EBRM effectively.
The development of EBRM from the perspective of scientific research dynamics
We retrieve electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), and China science and technology journal (CSTJ). The keywords are: rehabilitation medicine and evidence based. The search was conducted from the establishment of the database to June 2023. The search results are shown in Figure 2, and the search strategy is shown in Supplementary Figure 1 (using PubMed as an example). To gather a broader range of literature, we simultaneously conducted searches in the physical collection of books and journals at the West China Clinical Medical Library of Sichuan University, spanning from the establishment of the library to June 2023. The summarized feature and quality assessment (the OCEBM method was used as an evaluation tool) of references cited in this paper as seen in Supplementary Table 5.
Results of database search. CNKI, China national knowledge infrastructure; CSTJ, China science and technology journal database; EBRM, evidence-based rehabilitation medicine; EBEDRM, evidence-based education rehabilitation medicine; EBNRM, evidence-based nursing rehabilitation medicine; EBENRM, evidence-based engineering rehabilitation medicine; EBMRM, evidence-based musculoskeletal rehabilitation medicine; EBNM, evidence-based neurorehabilitation medicine; EBTCRM, evidence-based traditional Chinese rehabilitation medicine; EBIRM, evidence-based internal rehabilitation medicine; EBICRM, evidence-based intensive care rehabilitation medicine; EBGRM, evidence-based geriatric rehabilitation medicine; EBORM, evidence-based oncology rehabilitation medicine; EBPTM, evidence-based physical therapy medicine; EBCRM, evidence-based cardiopulmonary rehabilitation medicine; EBSTM, evidence-based speech therapy medicine; EBOTM, evidence-based occupation therapy medicine.
Analyze the results of search and explore the development of EBRM
Through the database search, literature screening, and final selection, a total of 127 articles were included. After reviewing the abstracts or full texts of the articles, the research directions were classified and summarized. It was found that there were relatively more publications in the fields of EBMRM, EBNM, and EBEDRM. This indicates that EBRM in these three fields has shown good development, with a relatively high level of attention from scholars. On the other hand, the number of articles published in the fields of EBNRM, EBENRM, EBTCRM, EBIRM, EBICRM, EBGRM, EBORM, EBCRM, EBPTM, EBSTM and EBOTM were relatively small, indicating that the development of EBRM in these eleven fields is relatively slow. The following is a detailed introduction to the current development status of EBMRM, EBNM, and EBEDRM, and a summary development of EBNRM, EBENRM, EBTCRM, EBIRM, EBICRM, EBGRM, EBORM, EBCRM, EBPTM, EBSTM and EBOTM.
The development of EBMRM
In the field of EBMRM, the main research focuses on osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and musculoskeletal pain, and also focuses on other conditions such as hip and knee replacements [30], hip fractures [31], [32], [33], pinal deformities [34], [35], [36], and muscular diseases [37, 38].
Ilieva et al. [39] proposed that the optimal management of osteoarthritis (OA) involves a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches, which is a common theme among most evidence-based management guidelines for OA. Dincer [40] suggested that for patients with hand osteoarthritis (HOA), a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments is preferable to alleviate pain and improve function. After reviewing the literature, Larmer et al. [41] emphasized the critical role of exercise and education for patients with OA. It is recommended to educate all patients with HOA on joint protection (how to avoid detrimental mechanical factors), particularly before engaging in exercise and ultrasound therapy. Additionally, strengthening exercises within the range of joint motion and local heat application (such as paraffin treatment) are advised [42]. Valero-Alcaide et al. [43] found strong evidence supporting the use of exercise and physical therapy as conservative treatments for hip osteoarthritis. Additionally, PRP (platelet-rich plasma) injections are becoming increasingly common for treatment of OA. Loew et al. [44] conducted a study indicating that aerobic walking therapy could improve pain, quality of life, and functional status in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, Wu et al. [45] found a lack of evidence in EBM regarding the use of backward walking, also known as retro-walking, despite its potential benefits in symptom improvement, rehabilitation, and adjunctive treatment for KOA.
Regarding osteoporosis (OP), Oral et al. [46] suggested that existing evidence indicates a wide range of interventions within the scope of RM that may be effective in preventing and/or managing OP and its sequelae. These interventions encompass strategies of prevention (including education and self-management, with exercise being of utmost importance), strategies of pain management, and the use of spinal orthoses or hip protectors. Marchenkova [47] analyzed the rehabilitation treatment of elderly patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures and found that a comprehensive medical rehabilitation plan, including physical exercise, physiotherapy, and orthotics, could significantly improve patients’ functionality.
Pain is a common complaint among patients undergoing rehabilitation, and existing evidence suggests that the role of physical therapists in pain management is justified [48]. Individuals with musculoskeletal pain issues are often overlooked, and their concerns are frequently misunderstood by healthcare providers, leading to a lack of timely or effective treatment. In response to this, Walsh et al. [49] had developed international standards for the care of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Gebremariam et al. [50] argued that for patients with subacromial impingement syndrome, due to the potentially lower risks of complications, conservative treatment may be preferred and more beneficial. Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition in RM, and according to Golec et al. [51], there is moderate evidence supporting the implementation of clinical practice guideline principles to improve pain and disability ratings in nonspecific LBP patients. Hilde et al. [52] suggested that active engagement in daily activities within the limits allowed by LBP is important, while Le Blay [53] found strong evidence supporting the use of functional recovery programs for treating LBP. Malfliet et al. [54] recommended tailoring exercise modalities to the preferences and abilities of patients with LBP, highlighting that combining exercise interventions with a psychological component yields better results that are sustained over time. For patients with carpal tunnel syndrome, Huisstede et al. [55] found that surgical treatment appears to be more effective than splinting or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with hand therapy in the medium to long term. However, there is no clear evidence favoring one surgical treatment over another, and further research is needed to investigate conservative surgical treatment options, taking into account the optimal timing of surgery. Regarding musculoskeletal disorders of the hand (trigger finger, Dupuytren’s disease, and De Quervain’s disease), Huisstede et al. [56] suggested that some interventions have shown efficacy for these conditions. However, due to the limited number of RCTs, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, highlighting the need for high-quality studies in this field. Generalized and regional soft tissue pain syndromes pose significant challenges in terms of functional loss and disability, leading to a substantial societal burden. Consensus on the optimal management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in adults has not yet been reached. Ferraro et al. [57] suggest that, based on current evidence, it is difficult to determine which therapies should be used for the exact and effective relief of pain, disability, or both. However, Oral et al. [58] argued that for CRPS, strong evidence supports the use of interventions such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), spinal cord blockade, and stimulation to alleviate pain. They also emphasize the importance of functional-oriented assessment and management of the disease by rehabilitation physicians, using the ICF as a reference, to effectively meet the needs of patients with soft tissue pain syndromes. For patients with musculoskeletal disorders and injuries, Oral et al. [59] proposed that developing rehabilitation programs based on the ICF could ultimately improve the quality of life for this patient population.
The development of EBNM
In the field of EBNM, the main focus is stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal cord injury (SCI), and other neurological disorders (including spinal malformations [60]), cognitive rehabilitation [61], [62], [63], hereditary ataxia syndromes [64], vestibular migraines [65], multiple sclerosis [66, 67], amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [68], neuropathic pain [69], Angelman syndrome [70], etc. The following provides a brief overview of the research progress in EBNM for stroke, TBI and SCI.
Elsner et al. [71] found that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could improve activities of daily living in post-stroke patients, but it does not improve the function of arm and leg, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities. Gambito et al. [72] updated the rehabilitation guidelines for stroke and suggested that they can be effectively utilized by guideline implementers in developing countries. Gonzalez-Suarez et al. [73] further discovered that non-adherence to stroke care of EBRM significantly increases the risk of medical complications such as cardiovascular events, pneumonia, pressure ulcers, and venous thrombosis. Gor-García-Fogeda et al. [74] identified the shortened version of the Fugl-Meyer assessment as the most suitable functional assessment tool for stroke patients. Early rehabilitation is crucial after stroke, but Langhorne et al. [75] found that initiating intensive activity within 24 h of stroke onset may pose some risks. In the realm of stroke-related sexual dysfunction rehabilitation, Stratton et al. [76] found that the effectiveness of three treatment methods (sildenafil, structured rehabilitation, and pelvic floor therapy) requires further validation. Based on their study, Küçükdeveci et al. [77] emphasized that rehabilitation physicians need to consider all impairments, comorbidities, and complications, as well as activity limitations, participation restrictions, and personal and environmental factors, in order to develop and manage comprehensive rehabilitation plans for stroke survivors. Hubbard et al. [78] conducted a study and found that rehabilitation facilities that offer evidence-based management are more likely to provide better rehabilitation outcomes for patients with stroke. Andan encouraging trends in the healthcare sector regarding improvements in service delivery for patients with stroke [79].
Brown et al. [80] identified that current systematic reviews for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) cover a wide range of topics but mainly focus on executive function, community integration, mental health, and pharmacological interventions. They highlighted the limitations of research designs in the field of RM, which restricts the utility of study findings in evidence-based practice. Kurnakova et al. [81] found that the use of various forms of physical exercise, neuromuscular stimulation, and robot-assisted training in rehabilitation is a prominent trend in evidence-based research for patients with TBI. Manaseer et al. [82] discovered that individuals with concussion may exhibit more frontal plane sway and slower walking compared to healthy controls. They also emphasized the need for high-quality prospective cohort studies to assess gait changes from concussion to recovery of activities, movement, recreation, and/or work. Following their study, Weddelll [83] suggested that reducing criticism from family members of patients with TBI may lead to improved rates of psychiatric recovery.
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating disease that presents a challenge to every healthcare system and society. Kurnakova et al. [84] conducted research that identified a set of effective techniques, including physical activity, pulse electrical therapy, and robot-assisted therapy, which could improve the functional abilities of patients with SCI. Rapidi et al. [85] found that rehabilitation physicians with expertise in interdisciplinary teams working in various environments could enhance the functional outcomes of patients with SCI through comprehensive rehabilitation programs. Sadeghi et al. [86] discovered that although whole-body vibration and focal vibration may reduce spasms in the short term, there is currently no evidence-based guidance in the literature to guide rehabilitation clinicians on the use of vibration applications for spasticity management for patients with SCI. Regan et al. [87] highlighted the lack of research on pressure ulcer preventive interventions specific to SCI, despite the cost-effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention being well-established.
The development of EBEDRM
In the field of EBEDRM, research is primarily focused on educational methodologies. Brown et al. [88] had developed methodological guidelines for rehabilitation researchers to conduct high-quality systematic literature reviews. Moore et al. [89] emphasized the importance of knowledge translation in the practice of EBRM. Negrini et al. [90] highlighted knowledge translation as a bridge in EBRM, facilitating the dissemination of evidence. Dijkers et al. [91] described the development of knowledge translation as a new art and science that facilitates the feasibility of services in EBRM. Sander et al. [92] emphasized that the translation of evidence helps in translating research findings into clinical practice.
It is crucial to educate rehabilitation professionals on how to utilize high-quality evidence and develop and evaluate contemporary best practices to improve rehabilitation practice [93]. Teaching the foundational knowledge of scientific research in physical medicine and rehabilitation education could assist physicians and therapists in selecting treatment methods based on (new) scientific evidence [94]. Neumann et al. [95] found that rehabilitation physicians play a crucial role in interdisciplinary teams, and training in strategies of EBRM, knowledge, and critical analysis is essential for diagnosing and assessing health issues and ensuring safe interventions. Drefs et al. [96] emphasized the urgent need for interdisciplinary evidence-based continuing professional education, particularly in advanced stroke rehabilitation. And suggested that various online education approaches focused on evidence-based practices in each domain, providing high-quality credits, could meet the diverse needs of practicing rehabilitation professionals [97]. Hunter et al. [98] enabled rehabilitation professionals to use evidence-based methods to understand, assess, and treat pain conditions by offering an online graduate-level education program that grants a certificate in pain management.
The development of EBNRM, EBENRM, EBTCRM, EBIRM, EBICRM, EBGRM, EBORM, EBCRM, EBPTM, EBSTM and EBOTM
EBNRM primarily focuses on the rehabilitation of patients with TBI [99], while EBENRM centers on the application of footwear [100], [101], [102], prosthetic limbs [103], arch support [104], and power wheelchairs [105]. EBTCRM primarily emphasizes traditional Chinese exercise therapy [106] and acupuncture [107, 108]. The rehabilitation management covered in EBITRM includes blood lead toxicity in patients with retained missiles [109], obesity [110], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [111], chronic respiratory conditions [112], low hematocrit in the acute rehabilitation setting [113], Behçet’s disease [114], patients with methylmalonic acidemia [115], secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon [116], COVID-19 [117] and frailty syndrome [118]. EBICRM focuses on improving post-intensive care outcomes [119], clinical practice of assessment scales for disorders of consciousness [120], early rehabilitation of adults with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [121], and bundled care for patients with dysphagia after severe TBI [122].
EBGRM primarily addresses the needs of aging people with disabilities [123]. EBORM focuses on disability in patients with advanced cancer [124], high-quality rehabilitation care, and rehabilitation for patients with cancer [125, 126]. EBCRM centers on specific exercise rehabilitation for atrial fibrillation [127], a modified Delphi process for phase II cardiac rehabilitation programs [128], internet-based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease [129], digital platforms for supporting cardiovascular disease self-management [130], a consensus procedure using a Delphi process for cardiovascular conditions [131], and cardiac rehabilitation services for patients with colorectal cancer [132].
EBPTM primarily concentrates on functional electrical stimulation [133], evaluation of practice and innovation in rehabilitation using the ideal-physio framework [134], and extracorporeal shock wave therapy [135]. EBSTM mainly delves into important factors in health-related quality of life for people with aphasia [136]. EBOTM is primarily concerned with vocational rehabilitation intervention (the rejoin intervention) to support people with cancer in remaining employed [137].
Conclusions
The development of the 14 sub specialties of EBRM is not balanced, among which EBMRM, EBNM, and EBEDRM have a relatively well developed. The research direction of EBMRM mainly focuses on osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and musculoskeletal pain. EBNM is mainly concentrated in stroke, TBI, and SCI. The research direction of EBEDRM mainly focuses on educational methodology. The development of EBNRM, EBENRM, EBTCRM, EBIRM, EBICRM, EBGRM, EBORM, EBCRM, EBPTM, EBSTM and EBOTM are relatively slow, these eleven fields should be pay more attention in future.
Limitations and advances
This study has some limitations and advances. Firstly, it is important to note that this research is merely a literature review and did not include a Meta-analysis. As a result, there was no assessment of the evidence levels for the retrieved literature. Secondly, our search was limited to the keywords “Rehabilitation medicine and evidence-based,” which might have led to the omission of various rehabilitation treatment methods and a wide range of medical conditions. Consequently, some relevant literature might have been overlooked, although this does not undermine the central idea of the paper. Despite these limitations, the study was the initial time to systematic clarifies the definition, foundation and practice of EBRM. The study may provide valuable insights into the overall development of EBRM, offering useful guidance to future researchers.
Funding source: 1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University
Award Identifier / Grant number: ZYGD18018
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Fengyuan for searching the database. And we also would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance of ChatGPT(version 3.5), an AI language model developed by OpenAI, for its help in editing the language in a English native way.
-
Research ethics: Not applicable.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Author contributions: JLZ wrote the main manuscript text and designed the study, interpreted the data, and edited the manuscript. CQH planned the project. The authors all read and approved the final manuscript.
-
Competing interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
-
Research funding: This research receive grant from funding 1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, the number is ZYGD18018.
References
1. Kreiner, DS, Matz, P, Bono, CM, Cho, CH, Easa, JE, Ghiselli, G, et al.. Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Spine J 2020;20:998–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.04.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Latin definition for: experior, experiri, expertus (ID: 19871); 2023. Available from: https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/19871/experior-experiri-expertus [Accessed 10 Jun 2023].Search in Google Scholar
3. Djulbegovic, B, Guyatt, GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet 2017;390:415–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31592-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Rohrich, RJ, Cohen, JM, Savetsky, IL, Avashia, YJ, Chung, KC. Evidence-based medicine in plastic surgery: from then to now. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;148:645e–9e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000008368.Search in Google Scholar
5. Riemann, D, Baglioni, C, Bassetti, C, Bjorvatn, B, Dolenc Groselj, L, Ellis, JG, et al.. European guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia. J Sleep Res 2017;26:675–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12594.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, Kunz, R, Falck-Ytter, Y, Alonso-Coello, P, et al.. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 2008;336:924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The oxford 2011 levels of evidence; 2023. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 [Accessed 10 Jun 2023].Search in Google Scholar
8. Arnold, A, Thigpen, CA, Beattie, PF, Kissenberth, MJ, Shanley, E. Overuse physeal injuries in youth athletes. Sports Health 2017;9:139–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738117690847.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Bob, P, Chris, B, Dave, S, Doug, B, Sharon, S, Brian, H, et al.. Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine: levels of evidence (march 2009); 2023. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based-medicine-levels-of-evidence-march-2009 [Accessed 10 Jun 2023].Search in Google Scholar
10. Huang, Y, Chen, Z, Chen, B, Li, J, Yuan, X, Li, J, et al.. Dietary sugar consumption and health: umbrella review. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 2023;381:e071609. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071609.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Leszczynski, R, da Silva, CA, Pinto, A, Kuczynski, U, da Silva, EM. Laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;9:Cd011642. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011642.pub2.Search in Google Scholar
12. Culvenor, AG, Girdwood, MA, Juhl, CB, Patterson, BE, Haberfield, MJ, Holm, PM, et al.. Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament and meniscal injuries: a best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews for the OPTIKNEE consensus. Br J Sports Med 2022;56:1445–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2022-105495.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Demont, A, Gedda, M, Lager, C, de Lattre, C, Gary, Y, Keroulle, E, et al.. Evidence-based, implementable motor rehabilitation guidelines for individuals with cerebral palsy. Neurology 2022;99:283–97. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000200936.Search in Google Scholar
14. Lafrance, S, Charron, M, Roy, JS, Dyer, JO, Frémont, P, Dionne, CE, et al.. Diagnosing, managing, and supporting return to work of adults with rotator cuff disorders: a clinical practice guideline. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52:647–64. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2022.11306.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Loh, E, Mirkowski, M, Agudelo, AR, Allison, DJ, Benton, B, Bryce, TN, et al.. The CanPain SCI clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation management of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: 2021 update. Spinal Cord 2022;60:548–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-021-00744-z.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Zhang, Y, Li, SA, Yepes-Nuñez, JJ, Morgan, RL, Pardo-Hernandez, H, Alonso Coello, P, et al.. GRADE summary of findings tables enhanced understanding of values and preferences evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2022;147:60–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Pratiwi, AB, Padmawati, RS, Mulyanto, J, Willems, DL. Patients values regarding primary health care: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. BMC Health Serv Res 2023;23:400. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09394-8.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Bogstrand, A, Gramstad, A, Anke, A, Stabel, HH, Arntzen, C. Healthcare professionals’ experiences with rehabilitation practices for patients with cognitive impairment after stroke in north Norway: a qualitative study. Rehabil Res Pract 2022;2022:8089862. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8089862.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
19. Wang, M, Yin, Y, Yang, H, Pei, Z, Molassiotis, A. Evaluating the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of non-invasive neuromodulation techniques in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2022;58:102124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2022.102124.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Phillips, RS, Vaarwerk, B, Morgan, JE. Using evidence-based medicine to support clinical decision-making in RMS. Cancers 2022;15:66. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15010066.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
21. Sacco, S, Amin, FM, Ashina, M, Bendtsen, L, Deligianni, CI, Gil-Gouveia, R, et al.. European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention – 2022 update. J Headache Pain 2022;23:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-022-01431-x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Leung, GM. Evidence-based practice revisited. Asia Pac J Public Health 2001;13:116–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/101053950101300210.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. González-González, CS, Toledo-Delgado, PA, Muñoz-Cruz, V, Torres-Carrion, PV. Serious games for rehabilitation: gestural interaction in personalized gamified exercises through a recommender system. J Biomed Inf 2019;97:103266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103266.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Kinoshita, S, Abo, M, Okamoto, T, Miyamura, K. Transitional and long-term care system in Japan and current challenges for stroke patient rehabilitation. Front Neurol 2021;12:711470. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.711470.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
25. Rashid, M, Harish, SP, Mathew, J, Kalidas, A, Raja, K. Comprehensive rehabilitation outcome measurement scale (CROMS): development and preliminary validation of an interdisciplinary measure for rehabilitation outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2022;20:160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02048-z.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
26. Kylén, M, Ytterberg, C, von Koch, L, Elf, M. How is the environment integrated into post-stroke rehabilitation? A qualitative study among community-dwelling persons with stroke who receive home rehabilitation in Sweden. Health Soc Care Community 2022;30:1933–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13572.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Basla, C, Hungerbühler, I, Meyer, JT, Wolf, P, Riener, R, Xiloyannis, M. Usability of an exosuit in domestic and community environments. J NeuroEng Rehabil 2022;19:131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-022-01103-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
28. Lehane, E, Leahy-Warren, P, O’Riordan, C, Savage, E, Drennan, J, O’Tuathaigh, C, et al.. Evidence-based practice education for healthcare professions: an expert view. BMJ Evid Based Med 2019;24:103–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
29. Malmut, L, Kline-Quiroz, C, Cushman, DM. Competency assessment in physical medicine and rehabilitation resident education: a systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2022;101:1111–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/phm.0000000000001983.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
30. Bandholm, T, Kehlet, H. Physiotherapy exercise after fast-track total hip and knee arthroplasty: time for reconsideration? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:1292–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.02.014.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Chudyk, AM, Jutai, JW, Petrella, RJ, Speechley, M. Systematic review of hip fracture rehabilitation practices in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:246–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.06.036.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
32. Handoll, HHG, Cameron, ID, Mak, JCS, Panagoda, CE, Finnegan, TP. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;11:CD007125. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd007125.pub3.Search in Google Scholar
33. Roberts, JL, Din, NU, Williams, M, Hawkes, CA, Charles, JM, Hoare, Z, et al.. Development of an evidence-based complex intervention for community rehabilitation of patients with hip fracture using realist review, survey and focus groups. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014362. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014362.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
34. Negrini, S, Imperio, G, Villafañe, JH, Negrini, F, Zaina, F. Systematic reviews of physical and rehabilitation medicine Cochrane contents. Part 1. Disabilities due to spinal disorders and pain syndromes in adults. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2013;49:597–609.Search in Google Scholar
35. Negrini, S, Dincer, F, Kiekens, C, Kruger, L, Varela-Donoso, E, Christodoulou, N. Evidence based position paper on physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) practice for people with spinal deformities during growth. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017;53:125–31. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.16.04406-3.Search in Google Scholar
36. Negrini, S. Approach to scoliosis changed due to causes other than evidence: patients call for conservative (rehabilitation) experts to join in team orthopedic surgeons. Disabil Rehabil 2008;30:731–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280801889485.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
37. Chew, STH, Kayambu, G, Lew, CCH, Ng, TP, Ong, F, Tan, J, et al.. Singapore multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on muscle health in older adults: assessment and multimodal targeted intervention across the continuum of care. BMC Geriatr 2021;21:314. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02240-8.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
38. Lazovic, M, Nikolic, D, Boyer, FC, Borg, K, Ceravolo, MG, Zampolini, M, et al.. Evidence based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine practice for people with muscular dystrophies. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2021;57:1036–44. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.21.07121-5.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
39. Ilieva, EM, Oral, A, Küçükdeveci, A, Varela, E, Valero, R, Bertreanu, M, et al.. Osteoarthritis. The role of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Physicians. The European perspective based on the best evidence. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2013;49:579–93.Search in Google Scholar
40. Dincer, F. Evidence based medicine in PRM, diagnosis and management of hand osteoarthritis (HOA). Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2014;57:e428–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2014.03.1563.Search in Google Scholar
41. Larmer, PJ, Reay, ND, Aubert, ER, Kersten, P. Systematic review of guidelines for the physical management of osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014;95:375–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.011.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
42. Dincer, F. WIN what is new in hand osteoarthritis? update in physical and rehabilitation medicine on hand osteoarthritis. Osteoporosis Int 2019;30:S199.Search in Google Scholar
43. Valero-Alcaide, R, Muñoz-Lasa, S. What is new in hip osteoarthritis? update in physical and rehabilitation medicine. Osteoporosis Int 2019;30:S200.Search in Google Scholar
44. Loew, L, Brosseau, L, Wells, GA, Tugwell, P, Kenny, GP, Reid, R, et al.. Ottawa panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for aerobic walking programs in the management of osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:1269–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.01.024.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
45. Wu, Y, Lei, C, Huangfu, Z, Sunzi, K, Yang, C. Effect of backward walking training on knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2020;10:e040726. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040726.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
46. Oral, A, Küçükdeveci, AA, Varela, E, Ilieva, EM, Valero, R, Berteanu, M, et al.. Osteoporosis. The role of physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians. The European perspective based on the best evidence. A paper by the UEMS-PRM Section Professional Practice Committee. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2013;49:565–77.Search in Google Scholar
47. Marchenkova, LA. Topical issues of rehabilitation of patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult 2022;99:69–79. https://doi.org/10.17116/kurort20229901169.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
48. Fazekas, G, Antunes, F, Negrini, S, Barotsis, N, Schwarzkopf, SR, Winkelmann, A, et al.. Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine professional practice for persons with acute and chronic pain. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018;54:952–6. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.18.05410-2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
49. Walsh, NE, Brooks, P, Hazes, JM, Walsh, RM, Dreinhöfer, K, Woolf, AD, et al.. Standards of care for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain: the bone and joint decade (2000-2010). Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:1830–45.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.04.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
50. Gebremariam, L, Hay, EM, Koes, BW, Huisstede, BM. Effectiveness of surgical and postsurgical interventions for the subacromial impingement syndrome: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92:1900–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
51. Golec, SJ, Valier, AR. The effect of following clinical practice guidelines on the pain and disability outcomes of patients with low back pain-A critically appraised topic. J Sport Rehabil 2018;27:189–93. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2015-0185.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
52. Hilde, G, Hagen, KB, Jamtvedt, G, Winnem, M. Advice to stay active as a single treatment for low‐back pain and sciatica. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;CD003632. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003632.pub2.Search in Google Scholar
53. Le Blay, G. Management of chronic low-back pain with rehabilitation and physical medicine. Douleurs 2011;12:173–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.douler.2011.04.005.Search in Google Scholar
54. Malfliet, A, Ickmans, K, Huysmans, E, Coppieters, I, Willaert, W, Bogaert, WV, et al.. Best evidence rehabilitation for chronic pain Part 3: low back pain. J Clin Med 2019;8:1063. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8071063.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
55. Huisstede, BM, Randsdorp, MS, Coert, JH, Glerum, S, van Middelkoop, M, Koes, BW. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Part II: effectiveness of surgical treatments-A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1005–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.03.023.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
56. Huisstede, BM, van Middelkoop, M, Randsdorp, MS, Glerum, S, Koes, BW. Effectiveness of interventions of specific complaints of the arm, neck, and/or shoulder: 3 musculoskeletal disorders of the hand. An update. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:298–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.09.023.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
57. O’Connell, NE, Wand, BM, McAuley, JH, Marston, L, Moseley, GL. Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome‐ an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;6:CD009416. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009416.pub3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
58. Oral, A, Christodoulou, N, Ilieva, EM, Küçükdeveci, AA, Varela, E, Valero, R, et al.. Generalised and regional soft tissue pain syndromes. The role of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Physicians. The European perspective based on the best evidence. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2013;49:535–49.Search in Google Scholar
59. Oral, A, Ilieva, EM, Küçükdeveci, AA, Varela, E, Valero, R, Berteanu, M, et al.. Local soft tissue musculoskeletal disorders and injuries. The role of physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians. The European perspective based on the best evidence. A paper by the UEMS-PRM Section Professional Practice Committee. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2013;49:727–42.Search in Google Scholar
60. Petronic Markovic, I, Nikolic, D, Stahl, M, Tederko, P, Hdyrya, O, Negrini, S, et al.. Evidence-based position paper of the UEMS PRM on the role of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) physician in the management of children and adults with spinal dysraphism. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2022;58:511–9. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.22.07536-0.Search in Google Scholar
61. Cicerone, KD. Facts, theories, values: shaping the course of neurorehabilitation. The 60th John Stanley Coulter memorial lecture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:188–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.12.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
62. Cicerone, KD, Dahlberg, C, Malec, JF, Langenbahn, DM, Felicetti, T, Kneipp, S, et al.. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 1998 through 2002. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:1681–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.024.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
63. Langenbahn, DM, Ashman, T, Cantor, J, Trott, C. An evidence-based review of cognitive rehabilitation in medical conditions affecting cognitive function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94:271–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.011.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
64. Vogel, AP, Folker, J, Poole, ML. Treatment for speech disorder in Friedreich ataxia and other hereditary ataxia syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;10:CD008953. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd008953.pub2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
65. Webster, KE, Dor, A, Galbraith, K, Haj Kassem, L, Harrington-Benton, NA, Judd, O, et al.. Non‐pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;4:CD015321. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd015321.pub2.Search in Google Scholar
66. Heine, M, Beckerman, H, Hämäläinen, P, de Groot, V. Evidence-based rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis made easy: the online applying evidence with confidence (APPECO) platform. BMJ Open 2020;22:263–9. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2019-100.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
67. Latimer-Cheung, AE, Martin Ginis, KA, Hicks, AL, Motl, RW, Pilutti, LA, Duggan, M, et al.. Development of evidence-informed physical activity guidelines for adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94:1829–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.015.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
68. Lazovic, M, Nikolic, D, Boyer, FC, Borg, K, Ceravolo, MG, Zampolini, M, et al.. Evidence-based position paper on physical and rehabilitation medicine practice for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2022;58:271–9. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.21.07120-3.Search in Google Scholar
69. Zhang, YH, Hu, HY, Xiong, YC, Peng, C, Hu, L, Kong, YZ, et al.. Exercise for neuropathic pain: a systematic review and expert consensus. Front Med 2021;8:756940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.756940.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
70. Sommese, M, Corrado, B. A comprehensive approach to rehabilitation interventions in patients with angelman syndrome: a systematic review of the literature. Neurol Int 2021;13:359–70. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint13030036.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
71. Elsner, B, Kugler, J, Pohl, M, Mehrholz, J. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;11:CD009645. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009645.pub4.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
72. Gambito, ED, Gonzalez-Suarez, CB, Grimmer, KA, Valdecañas, CM, Dizon, JM, Beredo, ME, et al.. Updating contextualized clinical practice guidelines on stroke rehabilitation and low back pain management using a novel assessment framework that standardizes decisions. BMC Res Notes 2015;8:643. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1588-8.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
73. Gonzalez-Suarez, CB, Grimmer, K, Cabrera, JTC, Alipio, IP, Anota-Canencia, EGG, Santos-Carpio, MLP, et al.. Predictors of medical complications in stroke patients confined in hospitals with rehabilitation facilities: a Filipino audit of practice. Neurol Asia 2018;23:199–208.Search in Google Scholar
74. Gor-García-Fogeda, MD, Molina-Rueda, F, Cuesta-Gómez, A, Carratalá-Tejada, M, Alguacil-Diego, IM, Miangolarra-Page, JC. Scales to assess gross motor function in stroke patients: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014;95:1174–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.02.013.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
75. Langhorne, P, Collier, JM, Bate, PJ, Thuy, MNT, Bernhardt, J. Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;10:CD006187. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006187.pub3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
76. Stratton, H, Sansom, J, Brown-Major, A, Anderson, P, Ng, L. Interventions for sexual dysfunction following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;5:CD011189. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.120.030828.Search in Google Scholar
77. Küçükdeveci, AA, Stibrant Sunnerhagen, K, Golyk, V, Delarque, A, Ivanova, G, Zampolini, M, et al.. Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine professional practice for persons with stroke. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018;54:957–70. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.18.05501-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
78. Hubbard, IJ, Harris, D, Kilkenny, MF, Faux, SG, Pollack, MR, Cadilhac, DA. Adherence to clinical guidelines improves patient outcomes in australian audit of stroke rehabilitation practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:965–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.01.011.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
79. van Niekerk, SM, Kamalakannan, S, Inglis-Jassiem, G, Charumbira, MY, Fernandes, S, Webster, J, et al.. Towards universal health coverage for people with stroke in South Africa: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2021;11:e049988. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049988.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
80. Brown, P, Harmiss, M, Schomer, K, Johnson, K. A systematic review of reviews to evaluate the evidence supporting interventions for people with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.035.Search in Google Scholar
81. Kurnakova, KA, Plishchenko, IK, Ponomarenko, GN. Physical factors in the rehabilitation of patients after brain injury: a scientometric analysis of evidence-based studies. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult 2021;98:67–79. https://doi.org/10.17116/kurort20219803167.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
82. Manaseer, TS, Gross, DP, Dennett, L, Schneider, K, Whittaker, JL. Gait deviations associated with concussion: a systematic review. Clin J Sport Med 2020;30:S11–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/JSM.0000000000000537.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
83. Weddell, RA. Relatives’ criticism influences adjustment and outcome after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:897–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.020.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
84. Kurnakova, KA, Plishchenko, IK, Ponomarenko, GN. Physical factors in the rehabilitation of patients with the consequences of spinal cord injuries: scientometric analysis of evidence-based research. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult 2020;97:80–91. https://doi.org/10.17116/kurort20209705180.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
85. Rapidi, CA, Tederko, P, Moslavac, S, Popa, D, Branco, CA, Kiekens, C, et al.. Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice for persons with spinal cord injury. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018;54:797–807. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.18.05374-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
86. Sadeghi, M, Sawatzky, B. Effects of vibration on spasticity in individuals with spinal cord injury: a scoping systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2014;93:995–1007. https://doi.org/10.1097/phm.0000000000000098.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
87. Regan, MA, Teasell, RW, Wolfe, DL, Keast, D, Mortenson, WB, Aubut, JAL. A systematic review of therapeutic interventions for pressure ulcers after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:213–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.08.212.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
88. Brown, PA, Harniss, MK, Schomer, KG, Feinberg, M, Cullen, NK, Johnson, KL. Conducting systematic evidence reviews: core concepts and lessons learned. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:S177–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.038.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
89. Moore, JL, Mbalilaki, JA, Graham, ID. Knowledge translation in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a citation analysis of the knowledge-to-action literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2022;103:S256–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.12.031.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
90. Negrini, S, Gimigliano, F, Arienti, C, Kiekens, C. Knowledge translation: the bridging function of Cochrane rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018;99:1242–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.11.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
91. Dijkers, MP, Murphy, SL, Krellman, J. Evidence-based practice for rehabilitation professionals: concepts and controversies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:S164–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.12.014.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
92. Sander, AM, Van Veldhoven, LM, Backus, D. Maximizing usability of evidence in rehabilitation practice: tips for researchers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94:S43–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.05.032.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
93. Seel, RT, Dijkers, MP, Johnston, MV. Developing and using evidence to improve rehabilitation practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:S97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.04.008.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
94. Thibaut, A, Beaudart, C, Martens, G, Bornheim, S, Kaux, JF. Common bias and challenges in physical and rehabilitation medicine research: how to tackle them. Front Rehabil Sci 2022;3:873241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2022.873241.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
95. Neumann, V, Gutenbrunner, C, Fialka-Moser, V, Christodoulou, N, Varela, E, Giustini, A, et al.. Interdisciplinary team working in physical and rehabilitation medicine. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult 2010;42:4–8. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0483.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
96. Drefs, S, MacKay-Lyons, M, Green, T, Taylor, E, Swinton, L, Manns, T, et al.. Providing an inter-D clinical community advanced education through an online graduate level certificate in stroke rehabilitation program. Stroke 2012;43:e145.Search in Google Scholar
97. Drefs, S. University development of interdisciplinary online continuing professional education programs for health professionals. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94:e54–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.168.Search in Google Scholar
98. Hunter, L, Drefs, S, Magee, D. A novel approach to providing interdisciplinary post-professional education in pain management. Pain Res Manag 2011;16:116–7.Search in Google Scholar
99. Zumsteg, JM, Ennis, SK, Jaffe, KM, Mangione-Smith, R, MacKenzie, EJ, Rivara, FP. Quality of care indicators for the structure and organization of inpatient rehabilitation care of children with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:386–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.018.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
100. Bus, SA, Zwaferink, JB, Dahmen, R, Busch-Westbroek, T. State of the art design protocol for custom made footwear for people with diabetes and peripheral neuropathyDiabetes. Metab Res Rev 2020;36(1 Suppl):e3237. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3237.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
101. Estrella, MJ, Babineau, J, Colantonio, A, Bus, SA. State of the art design protocol for custom made footwear for people with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy. BMJ Open 2020;36:e3237. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3237.Search in Google Scholar
102. Hill, M, Healy, A, Chockalingam, N. Defining and grouping children’s therapeutic footwear and criteria for their prescription: an international expert Delphi consensus study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e051381. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051381.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
103. Maurer, C, Kikidis, D, Gatsios, D, Fotiadis, D, Bamiou, DE, Pavlou, M, et al.. Prosthetic prescription in The Netherlands: an observational study. BMJ Open 2003;27:170–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640308726679.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
104. Mulford, D, Taggart, HM, Nivens, A, Payrie, C. Arch support use for improving balance and reducing pain in older adults. Appl Nurs Res 2008;21:153–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2006.08.006.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
105. Ward, AL, Sanjak, M, Duffy, K, Bravver, E, Williams, N, Nichols, M, et al.. Power wheelchair prescription, utilization, satisfaction, and cost for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: preliminary data for evidence-based guidelines. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:268–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.023.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
106. Lizotte, PP, Panenka, WJ, Scheuermeyer, FX, Archambault, P, Jia, Y. Network meta-analysis of four kinds of traditional Chinese exercise therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: protocol for a systematic review. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048259. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048259.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
107. Walker, J3rd, Dreher, FL. Acupuncture: evidence-based treatment in the rehabilitation setting. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2020;31:699–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2020.07.005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
108. Wong, V, Cheuk, DKL, Lee, S, Chu, V. Acupuncture for acute management and rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;3:CD007700. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd007700.pub3.Search in Google Scholar
109. Bradley, N, Jedrzejko, N, Kaminsky, M, Garraway, N. Leading the way: an algorithm for blood lead toxicity monitoring in patients with retained missiles. Can Med Assoc J 2018;61:S26.Search in Google Scholar
110. Capodaglio, P, Ilieva, E, Oral, A, Kiekens, C, Negrini, S, Varela Donoso, E, et al.. Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice for people with obesity and related comorbidities. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017;53:611–24. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.17.04880-8.Search in Google Scholar
111. Chaplin, E, Hewitt, S, Apps, L, Edwards, K, Brough, C, Glab, A, et al.. The evaluation of an interactive web-based Pulmonary Rehabilitation programme: protocol for the WEB SPACE for COPD feasibility study. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008055. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008055.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
112. Oral, A, Juocevicius, A, Lukmann, A, Takáč, P, Tederko, P, Hāznere, I, et al.. Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice for people with respiratory conditions. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018;54:624–33. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.18.05309-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
113. Diamond, PT, Julian, DM. Practice trends in the management of low hematocrit in the acute rehabilitation setting. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2001;80:816–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002060-200111000-00005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
114. Hatemi, G, Silman, A, Bang, D, Bodaghi, B, Chamberlain, AM, Gul, A, et al.. EULAR recommendations for the management of Behçet disease. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:1656–62. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.080432.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
115. Hauser, NS, Paul, SM, Gropman, AL, Hanna, G, Sloan, J, Venditti, CP. The functional phenotype of an inborn error of metabolism: outlining impairment and disability in methylmalonic Acidemia. Mol Genet Metabol 2010;99:202.Search in Google Scholar
116. Huisstede, BM, Hoogvliet, P, Paulis, WD, Van Middelkoop, M, Hausman, M, Coert, JH, et al.. Effectiveness of interventions for secondary raynaud’s phenomenon: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011;92:1166–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.022.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
117. Negrini, S, Kiekens, C, Cordani, C, Arienti, C, De Groote, W. Cochrane “evidence relevant to” rehabilitation of people with post COVID-19 condition. What it is and how it has been mapped to inform the development of the World Health Organization recommendations. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2022;58:853–6. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.22.07793-0.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
118. Quittan, M. Frailty from the rehabilitation medicine point of view. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2014;47:385–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-014-0665-2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
119. Howard, AF, Currie, L, Bungay, V, Meloche, M, McDermid, R, Crowe, S, et al.. Health solutions to improve post-intensive care outcomes: a realist review protocol. Syst Rev 2019;8:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0939-7.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
120. Seel, RT, Sherer, M, Whyte, J, Katz, DI, Giacino, JT, Rosenbaum, AM, et al.. Assessment scales for disorders of consciousness: evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice and research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:1795–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.218.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
121. Xin, C, Wei, L, Guo, X, Zhang, Y, Zhang, Y, Gai, Y. Evidence summary of early rehabilitation of adults with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Chin Crit Care Med 2022;34:1041–7. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20220309-00226.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
122. Yan, N, Jiang, J, Liu, H, Deng, L, Hu, Q, Sun, J, et al.. Evidence-based bundled care for patients with dysphagia after severe traumatic brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transl Res 2021;13:7819–28.Search in Google Scholar
123. Oral, A, Rapidi, CA, Votava, J, Roussos, N, Michail, X, Kujawa, J, et al.. Evidence based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice for ageing people with disabilities. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2017;53:802–11. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.17.04864-x.Search in Google Scholar
124. Santiago-Palma, J, Payne, R. Palliative care and rehabilitation. Cancer 2001;92:1049–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010815)92:4+<1049::aid-cncr1418>3.0.co;2-h.10.1002/1097-0142(20010815)92:4+<1049::AID-CNCR1418>3.0.CO;2-HSearch in Google Scholar
125. Stout, NL, Silver, JK, Raj, VS, Rowland, J, Gerber, L, Cheville, A, et al.. Toward a national initiative in cancer rehabilitation: recommendations from a subject matter expert group. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016;97:2006–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2016.05.002.Search in Google Scholar
126. Tsuji, T, Ikoma, K, Mizuma, M, Tanuma, A, Tsurukawa, T, Muraoka, K, et al.. Japanese evidence-based guidelines for cancer rehabilitation. Support Care Cancer 2013;21:S183–4.Search in Google Scholar
127. Buckley, BJR, Risom, SS, Boidin, M, Lip, GYH, Thijssen, DHJ. Atrial fibrillation specific exercise rehabilitation: are we there yet? J Pers Med 2022;12:610. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12040610.Search in Google Scholar
128. Cartledge, S, Thomas, E, Hollier, K, Maddison, R. Development of standardised programme content for phase II cardiac rehabilitation programmes in Australia using a modified Delphi process. BMJ Open 2019;9:e032279. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032279.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
129. Devi, R, Singh, SJ, Powell, J, Fulton, EA, Igbinedion, E, Rees, K. Internet‐based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;12:CD009386. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009386.pub2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
130. Huangfu, Z, Sunzi, K, Yang, C, Tighe, SA, Maddison, R. Qualitative study of the views of people living with cardiovascular disease, and healthcare professionals, towards the use of a digital platform to support cardiovascular disease self-management. BMJ Open 2022;12:e056768. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056768.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
131. Juocevicius, A, Oral, A, Lukmann, A, Takáč, P, Tederko, P, Hāznere, I, et al.. Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice for people with cardiovascular conditions. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section). Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018;54:634–43. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1973-9087.18.05310-8.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
132. Munro, J, Adams, R, Campbell, A, Campbell, S, Donaldson, C, Godwin, J, et al.. CRIB--the use of cardiac rehabilitation services to aid the recovery of patients with bowel cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded feasibility study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004684. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004684.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
133. Alon, G. Functional electrical stimulation: transforming clinical trials to clinical practice-a forward perspective. Neuromodulation 2012;15:E1.10.4172/2165-7025.1000176Search in Google Scholar
134. Paez, A, Hamilton, D, Davies, L, Cook, J, Hirst, A, McCulloch, P, et al.. Evidence-based evaluation of practice and innovation in rehabilitation using the ideal-physio framework. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017;98:e66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.206.Search in Google Scholar
135. Yin, MC, Ye, J, Yao, M, Cui, XJ, Xia, Y, Shen, QX, et al.. Is extracorporeal shock wave therapy clinical efficacy for relief of chronic, recalcitrant plantar fasciitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo or active-treatment controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014;95:1585–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.01.033.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
136. Hilari, K, Needle, JJ, Harrison, KL. What are the important factors in health-related quality of life for people with aphasia? A systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:S86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.05.028.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
137. Eva, G, Playford, D, Radford, K, Burton, C. The development of a vocational rehabilitation intervention (the rejoin intervention) to support people with cancer to remain in work. Psycho Oncol 2013;22:108–9.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/mr-2023-0027).
© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.