Systematization of rehabilitation interventions for neuro-oncological patients using international classification of health interventions: a scoping review.
Anete Pètersone, Agnese Kārkliņa, Guna Berzina
PMID 38214120WHAT IT FOUND
Brain tumour rehabilitation papers named 47 interventions, but broad labels such as physiotherapy and speech therapy were too general to code.
Ask which specific tasks and targets were used, because the review did not show whether any intervention improves function.
Key findings
01The review included 58 publications and identified 47 unique rehabilitation interventions.
02Broad labels such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy were too general to link to specific ICHI codes.
03Most identified problems were at the level of body functions and structures rather than activities and participation.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a scoping review, not a trial or effectiveness review, so it cannot show whether any intervention improves function. Many papers used broad labels such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy or comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation without enough detail to code the actual technique. Most included studies had level II or level III evidence. The ICHI version used was not yet improved and validated. Only English articles about adults with brain tumours were included, and the search was limited to a set of databases. The review counted intervention mentions, so frequency in publications does not mean a therapy is best practice.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that any named rehabilitation intervention works. The review counted how often interventions appeared and mapped labels; it did not compare patient outcomes.