the large range of potential outcomes of interest, outcomes were not included in the search strategy. Rather, the above three search strings were used to capture potentially all relevant papers on older limbless veterans, with key outcomes highlighted during the initial phase of searching. Citation scanning was conducted for all papers included at the final stage. A special issue in the in which one of Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development – the searched-for articles was published was searched, and the authors also searched their – personal collections of articles. Selection of studies, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis of results For screening, article titles and abstracts were scanned for relevance by one reviewer and checked against the inclusion criteria by five members of the review team and discrepancies resolved by discussion. All relevant articles were subsequently read by three reviewers and a standardized data extraction form used to record key findings from each study. This form was also used to capture details on the type of study, location, and sample characteristics including age, gender, type/cause of amputation, and (where relevant) conflict in which limb trauma originated. Previous review studies (Bunn 2008; Cattan 2005; Wilson 2016) as et al. et al. et al. well as recognized assessment tools (CASP 2013; EPHPP 2010) were used to guide processes of quality assessment. For qualitative studies, judgments were based on the suitability of the research design and recruitment processes for addressing the study’s aims, the rigour of data collection and analysis processes, and whether there was a clear statement of the study’s findings (CASP 2013). For the quantitative studies, quality was determined by an overall assessment of the appropriateness of the study design and methods in relation to the study’s aims and objectives (Cattan 2005). Studies were judged accordingly by the same three et al. – reviewers who completed data extraction as strong, moderate, or weak according to their – methodological quality, and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
the large range of potential outcomes of interest, outcomes were not included in the search strategy. Rather, the above three search strings were used to capture all potentially relevant papers on older limbless veterans, with key outcomes highlighted during the initial phase of searching. Citation scanning was conducted for all papers included at the final stage. A special issue in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development – in which one of the searched-for articles was published – was searched, and the authors also searched their personal collections of articles. Selection of studies, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis of results For screening, article titles and abstracts were scanned for relevance by one reviewer and checked against the inclusion criteria by five members of the review team and discrepancies resolved by discussion. All relevant articles were subsequently read by three reviewers and a standardized data extraction form used to record key findings from each study. This form was also used to capture details on the type of study, location, and sample characteristics including age, gender, type/cause of amputation, and (where relevant) conflict in which limb trauma originated. Previous review studies (Bunn et al. 2008; Cattan et al. 2005; Wilson et al. 2016) as well as recognized assessment tools (CASP 2013; EPHPP 2010) were used to guide processes of quality assessment. For qualitative studies, judgments were based on the suitability of the research design and recruitment processes for addressing the study’s aims, the rigour of data collection and analysis processes, and whether there was a clear statement of the study’s findings (CASP 2013). For the quantitative studies, quality was determined by an overall assessment of the appropriateness of the study design and methods in relation to the study’s aims and objectives (Cattan et al. 2005). Studies were judged accordingly – by the same three reviewers who completed data extraction – as strong, moderate, or weak according to their methodological quality, and any discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
Ageing%20%26%20Society.docx