美国医学会与康复协会关于痉挛评估和管理的共识指南。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
PM&R Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1002/pmrj.13211
Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, Preeti Raghavan, Jessica Pruente, Daniel Moon, Cassandra M List, Joseph Edward Hornyak, Fatma Gul, Supreet Deshpande, Susan Biffl, Zainab Al Lawati, Abraham Alfaro
{"title":"美国医学会与康复协会关于痉挛评估和管理的共识指南。","authors":"Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, Preeti Raghavan, Jessica Pruente, Daniel Moon, Cassandra M List, Joseph Edward Hornyak, Fatma Gul, Supreet Deshpande, Susan Biffl, Zainab Al Lawati, Abraham Alfaro","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) conducted a comprehensive review in 2021 to identify opportunities for enhancing the care of adult and pediatric patients with spasticity. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop consensus-based practice recommendations aimed at addressing gaps in spasticity care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop consensus-based practice recommendations to identify and address gaps in spasticity care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Spasticity TEP engaged in a 16-month virtual meeting process, focusing on formulating search terms, refining research questions, and conducting a structured evidence review. Evidence quality was assessed by the AAPM&R Evidence, Quality and Performance Committee (EQPC), and a modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on recommendation statements and evidence grading. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) guided the rating of individual studies and the strength of recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TEP approved five recommendations for spasticity management and five best practices for assessment and management, with one recommendation unable to be graded due to evidence limitations. Best practices were defined as widely accepted components of care, while recommendations required structured evidence reviews and grading. The consensus guidance statement represents current best practices and evidence-based treatment options, intended for use by PM&R physicians caring for patients with spasticity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This consensus guidance provides clinicians with practical recommendations for spasticity assessment and management based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Clinical judgment should be exercised, and recommendations tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and risk profiles. The accompanying table summarizes the best practice recommendations for spasticity assessment and management, reflecting principles with little controversy in care delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AAPM&R consensus guidance on spasticity assessment and management.\",\"authors\":\"Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, Preeti Raghavan, Jessica Pruente, Daniel Moon, Cassandra M List, Joseph Edward Hornyak, Fatma Gul, Supreet Deshpande, Susan Biffl, Zainab Al Lawati, Abraham Alfaro\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pmrj.13211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) conducted a comprehensive review in 2021 to identify opportunities for enhancing the care of adult and pediatric patients with spasticity. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop consensus-based practice recommendations aimed at addressing gaps in spasticity care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop consensus-based practice recommendations to identify and address gaps in spasticity care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Spasticity TEP engaged in a 16-month virtual meeting process, focusing on formulating search terms, refining research questions, and conducting a structured evidence review. Evidence quality was assessed by the AAPM&R Evidence, Quality and Performance Committee (EQPC), and a modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on recommendation statements and evidence grading. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) guided the rating of individual studies and the strength of recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TEP approved five recommendations for spasticity management and five best practices for assessment and management, with one recommendation unable to be graded due to evidence limitations. Best practices were defined as widely accepted components of care, while recommendations required structured evidence reviews and grading. The consensus guidance statement represents current best practices and evidence-based treatment options, intended for use by PM&R physicians caring for patients with spasticity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This consensus guidance provides clinicians with practical recommendations for spasticity assessment and management based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Clinical judgment should be exercised, and recommendations tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and risk profiles. The accompanying table summarizes the best practice recommendations for spasticity assessment and management, reflecting principles with little controversy in care delivery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PM&R\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PM&R\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13211\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13211","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国物理医学与康复学会(AAPM&R)于 2021 年进行了一次全面审查,以确定加强成人和儿童痉挛患者护理的机会。美国物理医学与康复学会(AAPM&R)于 2021 年进行了一次全面审查,以确定加强成人和儿童痉挛患者护理的机会,并召集了一个技术专家小组(TEP),旨在制定基于共识的实践建议,以弥补痉挛护理中的不足:制定基于共识的实践建议,以确定并解决痉挛护理中的不足:痉挛 TEP 开展了为期 16 个月的虚拟会议,重点是制定搜索条件、完善研究问题并进行结构化证据审查。AAPM&R证据、质量和绩效委员会(EQPC)对证据质量进行了评估,并采用修改后的德尔菲程序就推荐声明和证据分级达成共识。推荐强度分类法(SORT)指导对单项研究和推荐强度的评级:结果:技术专家小组批准了五项痉挛管理建议和五项评估与管理最佳实践,其中一项建议因证据限制而无法分级。最佳实践被定义为广为接受的护理内容,而建议则需要进行结构化的证据审查和分级。该共识指导声明代表了当前的最佳实践和循证治疗方案,供治疗痉挛患者的 PM&R 医生使用:本共识指导为临床医生提供了基于现有最佳证据和专家意见的痉挛评估和管理的实用建议。临床医生应做出判断,并根据患者的个体需求、偏好和风险状况提出相应的建议。随附的表格总结了痉挛评估和管理的最佳实践建议,反映了在医疗服务中争议较少的原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AAPM&R consensus guidance on spasticity assessment and management.

Background: The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) conducted a comprehensive review in 2021 to identify opportunities for enhancing the care of adult and pediatric patients with spasticity. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop consensus-based practice recommendations aimed at addressing gaps in spasticity care.

Objective: To develop consensus-based practice recommendations to identify and address gaps in spasticity care.

Methods: The Spasticity TEP engaged in a 16-month virtual meeting process, focusing on formulating search terms, refining research questions, and conducting a structured evidence review. Evidence quality was assessed by the AAPM&R Evidence, Quality and Performance Committee (EQPC), and a modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on recommendation statements and evidence grading. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) guided the rating of individual studies and the strength of recommendations.

Results: The TEP approved five recommendations for spasticity management and five best practices for assessment and management, with one recommendation unable to be graded due to evidence limitations. Best practices were defined as widely accepted components of care, while recommendations required structured evidence reviews and grading. The consensus guidance statement represents current best practices and evidence-based treatment options, intended for use by PM&R physicians caring for patients with spasticity.

Conclusion: This consensus guidance provides clinicians with practical recommendations for spasticity assessment and management based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Clinical judgment should be exercised, and recommendations tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and risk profiles. The accompanying table summarizes the best practice recommendations for spasticity assessment and management, reflecting principles with little controversy in care delivery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PM&R
PM&R REHABILITATION-SPORT SCIENCES
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信