ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Integrative Rehabilitation for War-Related Polytrauma: A Narrative Review of Multidimensional Strategies and Implementation Challenges.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveModern high-intensity warfare, such as the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, generates a high incidence of multisystem polytrauma, blast-induced traumatic brain injury, and limb amputations often complicated by post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain. Traditional specialised rehabilitation protocols are structurally inadequate for these co-occurring symptoms and rely heavily on medical treatments, increasing the risk of opioid dependency. The primary aim of this review is to conceptualise a multidimensional integrative framework for war-related polytrauma; a secondary aim is to evaluate and summarise the evidence underpinning its key rehabilitation strategies for limited-resource, post-conflict environments.
methodsThis narrative review synthesises evidence identified through targeted database searches and purposive selection guided by clinical relevance, methodological quality, and applicability to war-related polytrauma across physical, technological, and non-pharmacological rehabilitation domains. Evidence was evaluated using a four-tier (A-D) hierarchy, comprising Tier A (systematic reviews and RCTs), Tier B (prospective cohort studies and non-randomised controlled trials), Tier C (descriptive, case-series, and retrospective studies), and Tier D (exploratory, mechanism-based, or expert opinion evidence). No systematic inclusion/exclusion protocol was applied, and no claims of comprehensive search coverage are made.
resultsConcurrent physical and trauma-focused psychological rehabilitation, evidenced by reduced pain and psychological symptom burden alongside improved functional independence, is supported by high-quality evidence (Tier A) for managing comorbid polytrauma. Robotic exoskeletons and AI-supported tele-rehabilitation demonstrate dose-dependent motor benefits in selected rehabilitation populations (Tier A-B), but their scalability in wartime settings is contingent on electricity supply, connectivity, equipment maintenance, and trained personnel. Acupuncture shows Tier A evidence for neuropathic pain and Tier B cost-effectiveness; evidence for phantom limb pain and PTSD is preliminary (Tier C-D) and requires dedicated RCTs in veteran populations. Ayurvedic herbal interventions are exploratory (Tier C-D) with no war-specific clinical trials; mechanistic plausibility is discussed as hypothesis-generating only.
conclusionsAddressing the war-related rehabilitation gap requires integration of biomedical care, technology-assisted rehabilitation, and evidence-graded non-pharmacological adjuncts within a structured biopsychosocial framework. Future priorities include pragmatic, adapted trial designs (e.g., stepped-wedge or cohort-embedded designs, which are more feasible than classical RCTs under wartime conditions) for acupuncture in phantom limb pain, feasibility trials for robotic rehabilitation in frontline-adjacent facilities, and health-economic modelling adapted to the Ukrainian context.
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.