Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38914582›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Identifying the risk of exercises, recommended by an artificial intelligence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

Annika Griefahn, Christoff Zalpour, Kerstin Luedtke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Annika GriefahnDepartment of Physiotherapy, Institute of Health Sciences, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Lübeck, Germany. a.griefahn@hs-osnabrueck.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0470-2539
Christoff ZalpourFaculty Business Management and Social Sciences, University of Applied Science Osnabrueck, Albrechtstraße 30, 49076, Osnabrück, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8692-0136
Kerstin LuedtkeDepartment of Physiotherapy, Institute of Health Sciences, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7308-5469

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) impact people globally, cause occupational illness and reduce productivity. Exercise therapy is the gold standard treatment for MSDs and can be provided by physiotherapists and/or also via mobile apps. Apart from the obvious differences between physiotherapists and mobile apps regarding communication, empathy and physical touch, mobile apps potentially offer less personalized exercises. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) may overcome this issue by processing different pain parameters, comorbidities and patient-specific lifestyle factors and thereby enabling individually adapted exercise therapy. The aim of this study is to investigate the risks of AI-recommended strength, mobility and release exercises for people with MSDs, using physiotherapist risk assessment and retrospective consideration of patient feedback on risk and non-risk exercises. 80 patients with various MSDs received exercise recommendations from the AI-system. Physiotherapists rated exercises as risk or non-risk, based on patient information, e.g. pain intensity (NRS), pain quality, pain location, work type. The analysis of physiotherapists' agreement was based on the frequencies of mentioned risk, the percentage distribution and the Fleiss- or Cohens-Kappa. After completion of the exercises, the patients provided feedback for each exercise on an 11-point Likert scale., e.g. the feedback question for release exercises was "How did the stretch feel to you?" with the answer options ranging from "painful (0 points)" to "not noticeable (10 points)". The statistical analysis was carried out separately for the three types of exercises. For this, an independent t-test was performed. 20 physiotherapists assessed 80 patient examples, receiving a total of 944 exercises. In a three-way agreement of the physiotherapists, 0.08% of the exercises were judged as having a potential risk of increasing patients' pain. The evaluation showed 90.5% agreement, that exercises had no risk. Exercises that were considered by physiotherapists to be potentially risky for patients also received lower feedback ratings from patients. For the 'release' exercise type, risk exercises received lower feedback, indicating that the patient felt more pain (risk: 4.65 (1.88), non-risk: 5.56 (1.88)). The study shows that AI can recommend almost risk-free exercises for patients with MSDs, which is an effective way to create individualized exercise plans without putting patients at risk for higher pain intensity or discomfort. In addition, the study shows significant agreement between physiotherapists in the risk assessment of AI-recommended exercises and highlights the importance of considering individual patient perspectives for treatment planning. The extent to which other aspects of face-to-face physiotherapy, such as communication and education, provide additional benefits beyond the individualization of exercises compared to AI and app-based exercises should be further investigated.Trial registration: 30.12.2021 via OSF Registries, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YCNJQ .

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceExercise TherapyMusculoskeletal DiseasesAdultAgedExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsPhysical TherapistsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentArtificial intelligenceExerciseMusculoskeletal disordersRisk analysis

Identifiers

PMID38914582
PMCPMC11196744

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.