搜索结果：European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine

AIM: In the last 40 years, physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) has made significant steps forward in Europe with the foundation of the European Federation of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (EFPMR) (1963) which gave rise to the European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM) (2004) the European Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine (1970), the PRM Section of the European Union of Medical Specialists (1974), and the European Board of PRM (1991). Our journal, formerly Europa Medico-physica (1964), the official journal of the EFPMR, now European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM) and official journal of the ESPRM since 2008, is distinct for its steadfast European vocation, long-standing Mediter-ranean interests and connections with various national scientific societies. Jointly with the ESPRM, efforts are under way to set up the European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Journal Network (EPRMJN). The aim of this article is to present a profile of the national journals in the EPRMJN so as to give a better overview of how the scientific part of PRM in Europe has developed within a national perspective. METHODS: A profile of the following national journals is presented: Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (France), Fizikalna i rehabilitacijska medicina (Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine) (Croatia), Neurorehabilitation (Bulgaria), Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Portuguese Society Journal (Portugal), Physical Medicine, Rehabilitaton, Health (Bulgaria), Physikalische Medizin - Rehabilitationsmedizin - Kurort-medizin/Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (Germany and Austria) Prevention and Rehabilitation (Bulgaria), Rehabilitacija (Rehabilitation) (Slovenia), Rehabilitación (Madr) (Spain), Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Turkey). CONCLUSION: Some national journals in Europe have a very long history and tradition of research and education. Having a better knowledge of these realities, usually hidden to the international readership owing to the English language barrier, could promote science in our specialty.

BACKGROUND: The European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Journal Network (EPRMJN), a joint initiative between the European Society Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM) and the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM), has the aim to increase scientific knowledge among PRM specialists and foster collaboration among physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) journals. This article reports the results of a survey of national PRM journals in Europe we conducted to obtain an overview of the current state of PRM research in the European setting. RESULTS: Every year 682 PRM papers are published in a total of 66 issues per 3 294 page in the 16 national journals that responded to our survey, out of the 21 published in 15 countries; 12 countries have no PRM journals and two did not respond. Some 94% of the journals responding to the survey have a research aim and 88% an educational aim; all journals use a peer-review process (75% blinded); on average, 58.8 submissions are received per year, of which 6.7% are invited papers; the rejection rate is 21.4%. The majority of papers report original research, and main topics are musculoskeletal and neurological rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Since the national journals published in Europe have a good peer review process and publish mainly original articles, it is possible that good research can be found. A major problem is the English language barrier to wider readerships, as many researchers publish only in their native language. The EPRMJN aims to discover this research and make it accessible to international audiences through systematic collection of articles appearing in the national journals of the EPRMJN and publication of content summaries on the ESPRM website.

BACKGROUND: Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care on health-related quality of life and functional and maximal exercise capacity in persons with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. We defined 'pulmonary rehabilitation' as exercise training for at least four weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. We defined 'usual care' as conventional care in which the control group was not given education or any form of additional intervention. We considered participants in the following situations to be in receipt of usual care: only verbal advice was given without additional education; and medication was altered or optimised to what was considered best practice at the start of the trial for all participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We requested missing data from the authors of the primary study. We used standard methods as recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Along with the 31 RCTs included in the previous version (2006), we included 34 additional RCTs in this update, resulting in a total of 65 RCTs involving 3822 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis.We noted no significant demographic differences at baseline between members of the intervention group and those who received usual care. For the pulmonary rehabilitation group, the mean forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) was 39.2% predicted, and for the usual care group 36.4%; mean age was 62.4 years and 62.5 years, respectively. The gender mix in both groups was around two males for each female. A total of 41 of the pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were hospital based (inpatient or outpatient), 23 were community based (at community centres or in individual homes) and one study had both a hospital component and a community component. Most programmes were of 12 weeks' or eight weeks' duration with an overall range of four weeks to 52 weeks.The nature of the intervention made it impossible for investigators to blind participants or those delivering the programme. In addition, it was unclear from most early studies whether allocation concealment was undertaken; along with the high attrition rates reported by several studies, this impacted the overall risk of bias.We found statistically significant improvement for all included outcomes. In four important domains of quality of life (QoL) (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores for dyspnoea, fatigue, emotional function and mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5 units (dyspnoea: MD 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.03; N = 1283; studies = 19; moderate-quality evidence; fatigue: MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; N = 1291; studies = 19; low-quality evidence; emotional function: MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78; N = 1291; studies = 19; mastery: MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; N = 1212; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Statistically significant improvements were noted in all domains of the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and improvement in total score was better than 4 units (MD -6.89, 95% CI -9.26 to -4.52; N = 1146; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis using the trials at lower risk of bias yielded a similar estimate of the treatment effect (MD -5.15, 95% CI -7.95 to -2.36; N = 572; studies = 7).Both functional exercise and maximal exercise showed statistically significant improvement. Researchers reported an increase in maximal exercise capacity (mean Wmax (W)) in participants allocated to pulmonary rehabilitation compared with usual care (MD 6.77, 95% CI 1.89 to 11.65; N = 779; studies = 16). The common effect size exceeded the MCID (4 watts) proposed by Puhan 2011(b). In relation to functional exercise capacity, the six-minute walk distance mean treatment effect was greater than the threshold of clinical significance (MD 43.93, 95% CI 32.64 to 55.21; participants = 1879; studies = 38).The subgroup analysis, which compared hospital-based programmes versus community-based programmes, provided evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups for all domains of the CRQ, with higher mean values, on average, in the hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation group than in the community-based group. The SGRQ did not reveal this difference. Subgroup analysis performed to look at the complexity of the pulmonary rehabilitation programme provided no evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups that received exercise only and those that received exercise combined with more complex interventions. However, both subgroup analyses could be confounded and should be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary rehabilitation relieves dyspnoea and fatigue, improves emotional function and enhances the sense of control that individuals have over their condition. These improvements are moderately large and clinically significant. Rehabilitation serves as an important component of the management of COPD and is beneficial in improving health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. It is our opinion that additional RCTs comparing pulmonary rehabilitation and conventional care in COPD are not warranted. Future research studies should focus on identifying which components of pulmonary rehabilitation are essential, its ideal length and location, the degree of supervision and intensity of training required and how long treatment effects persist. This endeavour is important in the light of the new subgroup analysis, which showed a difference in treatment effect on the CRQ between hospital-based and community-based programmes but no difference between exercise only and more complex pulmonary rehabilitation programmes.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity. MAIN RESULTS: From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity and HRQL in patients with CHD.To explore the potential study level predictors of the effectiveness of exercise-based CR in patients with CHD. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014) from December 2009 to July 2014. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Science Citation Index Expanded (December 2009 to July 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months' follow-up, compared with a no exercise control. The study population comprised men and women of all ages who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or who have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease. We included RCTs that reported at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, MI, revascularisations, hospitalisations, health-related quality of life (HRQL), or costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria. One author extracted data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. We stratified meta-analysis by the duration of follow up of trials, i.e. short-term: 6 to 12 months, medium-term: 13 to 36 months, and long-term: > 3 years. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 63 trials which randomised 14,486 people with CHD. This latest update identified 16 new trials (3872 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients and the mean age of patients within the trials ranged from 47.5 to 71.0 years. Women accounted for fewer than 15% of the patients recruited. Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality of reporting in more recent trials.As we found no significant difference in the impact of exercise-based CR on clinical outcomes across follow-up, we focused on reporting findings pooled across all trials at their longest follow-up (median 12 months). Exercise-based CR reduced cardiovascular mortality compared with no exercise control (27 trials; risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86). There was no reduction in total mortality with CR (47 trials, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04). The overall risk of hospital admissions was reduced with CR (15 trials; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96) but there was no significant impact on the risk of MI (36 trials; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04), CABG (29 trials; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16) or PCI (18 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04).There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity across trials for all event outcomes, and there was evidence of small study bias for MI and hospitalisation, but no other outcome. Predictors of clinical outcomes were examined across the longest follow-up of studies using univariate meta-regression. Results show that benefits in outcomes were independent of participants' CHD case mix (proportion of patients with MI), type of CR (exercise only vs comprehensive rehabilitation) dose of exercise, length of follow-up, trial publication date, setting (centre vs home-based), study location (continent), sample size or risk of bias.Given the heterogeneity in outcome measures and reporting methods, meta-analysis was not undertaken for HRQL. In five out of 20 trials reporting HRQL using validated measures, there was evidence of significant improvement in most or all of the sub-scales with exercise-based CR compared to control at follow-up. Four trial-based economic evaluation studies indicated exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years.The quality of the evidence for outcomes reported in the review was rated using the GRADE method. The quality of the evidence varied widely by outcome and ranged from low to moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that, compared with no exercise control, exercise-based CR reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality but not total mortality. We saw a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalisation with CR but not in the risk of MI or revascularisation. We identified further evidence supporting improved HRQL with exercise-based CR. More recent trials were more likely to be well reported and include older and female patients. However, the population studied in this review still consists predominantly of lower risk individuals following MI or revascularisation. Further well conducted RCTs are needed to assess the impact of exercise-based CR in higher risk CHD groups and also those presenting with stable angina. These trials should include validated HRQL outcome measures, explicitly report clinical event outcomes including mortality and hospital admissions, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide population is progressively ageing, with an expected increase in morbidity and demand for long-term care. Physical rehabilitation is beneficial in older people, but relatively little is known about effects on long-term care residents. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions directed at maintaining, or improving, physical function for older people in long-term care through the review of randomised and cluster randomised controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials registers of the following Cochrane entities: the Stroke Group (May 2012), the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (April 2012), and the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field (April 2012). In addition, we searched 20 relevant electronic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2009), EMBASE (1980 to December 2009), CINAHL (1982 to December 2009), AMED (1985 to December 2009), and PsycINFO (1967 to December 2009). We also searched trials and research registers and conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted authors, researchers, and other relevant Cochrane entities. We updated our searches of electronic databases in 2011 and listed relevant studies as awaiting assessment. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies comparing a rehabilitation intervention designed to maintain or improve physical function with either no intervention or an alternative intervention in older people (over 60 years) who have permanent long-term care residency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome was function in activities of daily living. Secondary outcomes included exercise tolerance, strength, flexibility, balance, perceived health status, mood, cognitive status, fear of falling, and economic analyses. We investigated adverse effects, including death, morbidity, and other events. We synthesised estimates of the primary outcome with the mean difference; mortality data, with the risk ratio; and secondary outcomes, using vote-counting. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 trials, involving 6300 participants. Fifty-one trials reported the primary outcome, a measure of activities of daily living. The estimated effects of physical rehabilitation at the end of the intervention were an improvement in Barthel Index (0 to 100) scores of six points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 11, P = 0.008, seven studies), Functional Independence Measure (0 to 126) scores of five points (95% CI -2 to 12, P = 0.1, four studies), Rivermead Mobility Index (0 to 15) scores of 0.7 points (95% CI 0.04 to 1.3, P = 0.04, three studies), Timed Up and Go test of five seconds (95% CI -9 to 0, P = 0.05, seven studies), and walking speed of 0.03 m/s (95% CI -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.1, nine studies). Synthesis of secondary outcomes suggested there is a beneficial effect on strength, flexibility, and balance, and possibly on mood, although the size of any such effect is unknown. There was insufficient evidence of the effect on other secondary outcomes. Based on 25 studies (3721 participants), rehabilitation does not increase risk of mortality in this population (risk ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13). However, it is possible bias has resulted in overestimation of the positive effects of physical rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical rehabilitation for long-term care residents may be effective, reducing disability with few adverse events, but effects appear quite small and may not be applicable to all residents. There is insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about improvement sustainability, cost-effectiveness, or which interventions are most appropriate. Future large-scale trials are justified.

BACKGROUND: The burden of cardiovascular disease world-wide is one of great concern to patients and health care agencies alike. Circulatory diseases, including myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, kill more people than any other disease. Cardiac rehabilitation aims to restore patients who have suffered myocardial infarction to optimal health through exercise only based rehabilitation or comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (eg. smoking cessation advice, diet and counselling as well as exercise). Data from two published and widely cited meta-analyses (Oldridge 1988, O'Connor 1989) of over 4,000 patients each have demonstrated that patients randomised to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation after MI have a statistically significant reduction in all-cause and cardiac mortality of about 20 to 25% compared to patients receiving conventional care. However, the trials included were small and often of poor methodological quality. Incomplete literature review methods may have resulted in publication bias thereby resulting in an over-estimate of the benefit of cardiac rehabilitation. The randomised controlled trials used in the reviews have focused almost exclusively on low-risk, middle-aged males post MI, thereby excluding women and the elderly. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of exercise only rehabilitation and exercise in addition to other rehabilitation interventions (termed comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) compared with usual care on the mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and modifiable cardiac risk factors of patients with coronary heart disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials, using standardised trial filters, from the earliest date available to December 31st 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Men and women of all ages, in both hospital-based and community-based settings, who have had myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, or who have angina pectoris or coronary artery disease defined by angiography have been included. Studies involving participants following heart transplant, heart valve surgery or heart failure have been excluded. Follow up periods of less than 6 months were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were selected independently by two reviewers, and data extracted independently. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: The current systematic review has allowed analysis of an increased number of patients from approximately 4500 in the earlier meta-analyses to 7683 (2582 in exercise only and 5101 in the comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation group). The quality of reporting overall was poor, with generally high losses to follow up. The pooled effect estimate for total mortality for the exercise only intervention shows a 27% reduction in all cause mortality (random effects model OR 0.73 (0.54, 0.98)). Similarly, comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation reduced all cause mortality compared to usual care, but to a lesser degree (OR 0.87 (0.71, 1.05)). Total cardiac mortality was reduced by 31% (random effects model OR 0.69 (0.51, 0.94)) and 26% (random effects model OR 0.74 (0.57, 0.96)) in the exercise only and comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation intervention groups respectively when compared to usual care. Neither intervention had any effect on the ocurrence of non-fatal myocardial infarction. There was a significant net reduction in total cholesterol in the comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation group (pooled WMD random effects model -0.57 mmol/l (-0.83, -0.31)), but not the exercise only rehabilitation group. Similarly, LDL was significantly reduced in the comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation group (pooled WMD random effects model -0.51 mmol/l (-0.82, -0.19). The effect of exercise only rehabilitation or comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation interventions on revascularisation rates, blood pressure or smoking behaviour could not be determined by this meta-analysis due to the small number of trials reporting these outcomes and heterogeneity between trials. It was not possible to combine the data from studies reporting HRQoL as an outcome. Eighteen different instruments were used to assess HRQoL in the 11 studies reporting it as an outcome. The data are presented qualitatively, only one trial reporting significant improvements with the intervention. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation appears to be effective in reducing cardiac deaths but the evidence base is weakened by poor quality trials. It is not clear from this review whether exercise only or a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation intervention is more beneficial. The population studied in this review is still predominately male, middle aged and low risk. Identification of the ethnic origin of the participants was seldom reported. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

RATIONALE: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has demonstrated physiological, symptom-reducing, psychosocial, and health economic benefits for patients with chronic respiratory diseases, yet it is underutilized worldwide. Insufficient funding, resources, and reimbursement; lack of healthcare professional, payer, and patient awareness and knowledge; and additional patient-related barriers all contribute to the gap between the knowledge of the science and benefits of PR and the actual delivery of PR services to suitable patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this document are to enhance implementation, use, and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation to suitable individuals worldwide. METHODS: Members of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Rehabilitation and Chronic Care Group established a Task Force and writing committee to develop a policy statement on PR. The document was modified based on feedback from expert peer reviewers. After cycles of review and revisions, the statement was reviewed and formally approved by the Board of Directors of the ATS and the Science Council and Executive Committee of the ERS. MAIN RESULTS: This document articulates policy recommendations for advancing healthcare professional, payer, and patient awareness and knowledge of PR, increasing patient access to PR, and ensuring quality of PR programs. It also recommends areas of future research to establish evidence to support the development of an updated funding and reimbursement policy regarding PR. CONCLUSIONS: The ATS and ERS commit to undertake actions that will improve access to and delivery of PR services for suitable patients. They call on their members and other health professional societies, payers, patients, and patient advocacy groups to join in this commitment.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created. MAIN RESULTS: We included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.

Malnutrition and sarcopenia often occur in rehabilitation settings. The prevalence of malnutrition and sarcopenia in older patients undergoing rehabilitation is 49-67 % and 40-46.5 %, respectively. Malnutrition and sarcopenia are associated with poorer rehabilitation outcome and physical function. Therefore, a combination of both rehabilitation and nutrition care management may improve outcome in disabled elderly with malnutrition and sarcopenia. The concept of rehabilitation nutrition as a combination of both rehabilitation and nutrition care management and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health guidelines are used to evaluate nutrition status and to maximize functionality in the elderly and other people with disability. Assessment of the multifactorial causes of primary and secondary sarcopenia is important because rehabilitation nutrition for sarcopenia differs depending on its etiology. Treatment of age-related sarcopenia should include resistance training and dietary supplements of amino acids. Therapy for activity-related sarcopenia includes reduced bed rest time and early mobilization and physical activity. Treatment for disease-related sarcopenia requires therapies for advanced organ failure, inflammatory disease, malignancy, or endocrine disease, while therapy for nutrition-related sarcopenia involves appropriate nutrition management to increase muscle mass. Because primary and secondary sarcopenia often coexist in people with disability, the concept of rehabilitation nutrition is useful for their treatment. Stroke, hip fracture, and hospital-associated deconditioning are major causes of disability, and inpatients of rehabilitation facilities often have malnutrition and sarcopenia. We review the concept of rehabilitation nutrition, the rehabilitation nutrition options for stroke, hip fracture, hospital-associated deconditioning, sarcopenic dysphagia, and then evaluate the amount of research interest in rehabilitation nutrition.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The concept of the "standing" of scientific journals (in terms of influence, prestige, popularity, etc.) is multi-dimensional and cannot be captured adequately by a single indicator. The aim of this report is to compare and comment on different bibliometric indicators related to some leading journals in rehabilitation, in order to provide further insights regarding their practical usefulness for Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. DISCUSSION: The commonly used Journal Impact Factor and the new SCImago Journal Rank indicator are measures of average "impact per paper". Other new measures show potentially useful complementarities with them and warrant further attention. For example, the Eigenfactor score represents a measure of total "citation impact" and seems sufficiently to express the "importance" of a journal. In fact, the information conveyed by the Eigenfactor score corresponds to a general consensus of journal status in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, as expressed by the European Consensus Committee on "International Rehabilitation Journals" and captured by a survey among European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine researchers.

This paper reviews the literature relating to the biofeedback used in physical rehabilitation. The biofeedback methods used in rehabilitation are based on biomechanical measurements and measurements of the physiological systems of the body. The physiological systems of the body which can be measured to provide biofeedback are the neuromuscular system, the respiratory system and the cardiovascular system. Neuromuscular biofeedback methods include electromyography (EMG) biofeedback and real-time ultrasound imaging (RTUS) biofeedback. EMG biofeedback is the most widely investigated method of biofeedback and appears to be effective in the treatment of many musculoskeletal conditions and in post cardiovascular accident (CVA) rehabilitation. RTUS biofeedback has been demonstrated effective in the treatment of low back pain (LBP) and pelvic floor muscle dysfunction. Cardiovascular biofeedback methods have been shown to be effective in the treatment of a number of health conditions such as hypertension, heart failure, asthma, fibromyalgia and even psychological disorders however a systematic review in this field has yet to be conducted. Similarly, the number of large scale studies examining the use of respiratory biofeedback in rehabilitation is limited. Measurements of movement, postural control and force output can be made using a number of different devices and used to deliver biomechanical biofeedback. Inertial based sensing biofeedback is the most widely researched biomechanical biofeedback method, with a number of studies showing it to be effective in improving measures of balance in a number of populations. Other types of biomechanical biofeedback include force plate systems, electrogoniometry, pressure biofeedback and camera based systems however the evidence for these is limited. Biofeedback is generally delivered using visual displays, acoustic or haptic signals, however more recently virtual reality (VR) or exergaming technology have been used as biofeedback signals. VR and exergaming technology have been primarily investigated in post-CVA rehabilitation, however, more recent work has shown this type of biofeedback to be effective in improving exercise technique in musculoskeletal populations. While a number of studies in this area have been conducted, further large scale studies and reviews investigating different biofeedback applications in different clinical populations are required.