Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32069288›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2020

Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

Leanne Hassett, Maayken van den Berg, Richard I Lindley, Maria Crotty, Annie McCluskey, Hidde P van der Ploeg, Stuart T Smith, Karl Schurr, Kirsten Howard, Maree L Hackett and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEquivalence TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Enhanced Rehabilitation Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Gait Training with EksoNR Lower Extremity Exoskeleton in 19 Stroke Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Leanne HassettInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3546-1822
Maayken van den BergRehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Richard I LindleyWestmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0104-5679
Maria CrottyRehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Annie McCluskeySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9719-6657
Hidde P van der PloegDepartment of Public & Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3719-5249
Stuart T SmithSchool of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4735-6026
Karl SchurrStrokeEd Collaboration, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kirsten HowardSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Maree L HackettThe George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1211-9087
Maggie KillingtonRehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Bert BongersFaculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Leanne TogherSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4518-6748
Daniel TreacyInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Simone DorschStrokeEd Collaboration, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Siobhan WongInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Katharine ScrivenerStrokeEd Collaboration, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0851-7023
Sakina ChagparInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9395-3243
Heather WeberRehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4945-8445
Marina PinheiroInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7459-5105
Stephane HeritierDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Catherine SherringtonInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8934-4368
The University of Sydney · AUFlinders University · AUBankstown Lidcombe Hospital · AUMacquarie University · AUMonash University · AUSouthern Cross University · AUUniversity of Lancashire · GBUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference -0.2, 95% CI -2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%-19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes.

conclusionsIn this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted.

trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628.

Indexed as

Computers, HandheldExerciseFitness TrackersMobility LimitationPhysical Therapy ModalitiesSmartphoneVideo GamesAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsNeurological Rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID32069288
PMCPMC7028259
OpenAlexW3007008929

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.