Implementation of Home-Based Telerehabilitation of Patients With Stroke in the United States: Protocol for a Realist Review.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a common cause of mortality and morbidity. Insufficient and untimely rehabilitation has been associated with inadequate recovery. Telerehabilitation provides an opportunity for timely and accessible services for individuals with stroke, especially in remote areas. Telerehabilitation is defined as a health care team's use of a communication mode (eg, videoconferencing) to remotely provide rehabilitation services. Telerehabilitation is as effective as facility-based rehabilitation; however, it is infrequently used due to implementation barriers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to explore the interaction between the implementation strategies, context, and outcomes of telerehabilitation of patients with stroke. METHODS: This review will follow four steps: (1) defining the review scope, (2) literature search and quality appraisal, (3) data extraction and evidence synthesis, and (4) narrative development. PubMed via MEDLINE, the PEDro database, and CINAHL will be queried till June 2023 and supplemented with citation tracking and a gray literature search. The relevance and rigor of papers will be appraised using the TAPUPAS (Transparency, Accuracy, Purposivity, Utility, Propriety, Accessibility, and Specificity) and Weight of Evidence frameworks. The reviewers will extract and synthesize data iteratively and develop explanatory links between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. The results will be reported according to the Realist Synthesis publication standards set by Wong and colleagues in 2013. RESULTS: The literature search and screening will be completed in July 2023. Data extraction and analysis will be completed in August 2023, and findings will be synthesized and reported in October 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first realist synthesis, uncovering the causal mechanisms to explain how, why, and to what extent implementation strategies impact telerehabilitation adoption and implementation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/47009.

Is there variation in utilization of preoperative tests among patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement in the US, and does it affect outcomes? A population-based analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe recent practice patterns of preoperative tests and to examine their association with 90-day all-cause readmissions and length of stay. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). SETTING: SPARCS from March 1, 2016, to July 1, 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing Total Hip Replacement (THR) or Total Knee Replacement (TKR) had a preoperative screening outpatient visit within two months before their surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Electrocardiogram (EKG), chest X-ray, and seven preoperative laboratory tests (RBCs antibody screen, Prothrombin time (PT) and Thromboplastin time, Metabolic Panel, Complete Blood Count (CBC), Methicillin Resistance Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) Nasal DNA probe, Urinalysis, Urine culture) were identified. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Regression analyses were utilized to determine the association between each preoperative test and two postoperative outcomes (90-day all-cause readmission and length of stay). Regression models adjusted for hospital-level random effects, patient demographics, insurance, hospital TKR, THR surgical volume, and comorbidities. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the subset of patients with no comorbidities. RESULTS: Fifty-five thousand ninety-nine patients (60% Female, mean age 66.1+/- 9.8 SD) were included. The most common tests were metabolic panel (74.5%), CBC (66.8%), and RBC antibody screen (58.8%). The least common tests were MRSA Nasal DNA probe (13.0%), EKG (11.7%), urine culture (10.7%), and chest X-ray (7.9%). Carrying out MRSA testing, urine culture, and EKG was associated with a lower likelihood of 90-day all-cause readmissions. The length of hospital stay was not associated with carrying out any preoperative tests. Results were similar in the subset with no comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in preoperative tests before THR and TKR. We identified three preoperative tests that may play a role in reducing readmissions. Further investigation is needed to evaluate these findings using more granular clinical data.

An umbrella review comparing computer-assisted and conventional total joint arthroplasty: quality assessment and summary of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) of computer-assisted (CA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) report conflicting evidence on its superiority over conventional surgery. Little is known about the quality of these SRs; variability in their methodological quality may be a contributing factor. We evaluated the methodological quality of all published SRs to date, summarized and examined the consistency of the evidence generated by these SRs. METHODS: We searched four databases through December 31, 2018. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was applied to assess the methodological quality. Evidence from included meta-analyses on functional, radiological and patient-safety outcomes was summarized. The corrected covered area was calculated to assess the overlap between SRs in including the primary studies. RESULTS: Based on AMSTAR 2, confidence was critically low in 39 of the 42 included SRs and low in 3 SRs. Low rating was mainly due to failure in developing a review protocol (90.5%); providing a list of excluded studies (81%); accounting for risk of bias when discussing the results (67%); using a comprehensive search strategy (50%); and investigating publication bias (50%). Despite inconsistency between SR findings comparing functional, radiological and patient safety outcomes for CA and conventional procedures, most TKA meta-analyses favored CA TKA, whereas most THA meta-analyses showed no difference. Moderate overlap was observed among TKA SRs and high overlap among THA SRs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite conclusions of meta-analyses favoring CA arthroplasty, decision makers adopting this technology should be aware of the low confidence in the results of the included SRs. To improve confidence in future SRs, journals should consider using a methodological assessment tool to evaluate the SRs prior to making a publication decision.