ArticleFujita medical journal2022
Development and preliminary evaluation of a tele-rehabilitation exercise system using computer-generated animation.
Article in Fujita medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolution of rehabilitation services in response to a global pandemic: reflection on opportunities and challenges ahead.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the safety and acceptability of a newly developed tele-rehabilitation exercise system using computer-generated animation. Methods: The participants comprised a convenience sample of 38 diverse individuals in Experiment 1 (15 healthy young people, 16 healthy older people, 5 patients with stroke, and 2 patients with respiratory disease) and 18 healthy older individuals in Experiment 2. Experiment 1 assessed safety in terms of cardiopulmonary vascular aspects and risk of fall, and Experiment 2 assessed treatment acceptability via a subjective evaluation. All participants completed the same exercise program. The safety assessment was conducted using heart rate (HR) and saturation of percutaneous oxygen (SpO2), measured before and after exercise. In addition, the occurrence of falls was assessed. For the acceptability assessment, the participants answered five questions (three-point Likert scale) after the exercise program. Results: The safety assessment indicated that HR and SpO2 changed from 70.5±10.2 beats per minute and 97.8±1.3% before exercise to 87.6±13.6 beats per minute and 98.2±0.9% after exercise, respectively. In addition, all participants completed the exercises without experiencing any falls. In the acceptability assessment, the score reflecting continuation desire was the highest of the five items examined (2.71±0.46). In contrast, the adequacy of exercise intensity had the lowest score (1.29±0.57). Conclusions: The present system was confirmed to be safe, and the participants were motivated to continue the exercises. Future developments should incorporate a function to enable participants and medical staff to adjust exercise intensity according to individual physical function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.