OBJECTIVE: To determine if repetitive task training after stroke improves functional activity. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing repetitive task training with attention control or usual care. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, electronic databases of published, unpublished and non-English language papers; conference proceedings, reference lists, and trial authors. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were randomized/quasi-randomized trials in adults after stroke where an active motor sequence aiming to improve functional activity was performed repetitively within a single training session. We used Cochrane Collaboration methods, resources, and software. RESULTS: We included 14 trials with 17 intervention-control pairs and 659 participants. Results were statistically significant for walking distance (mean difference 54.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.5, 91.7); walking speed (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.29, 95% CI 0.04, 0.53); sit-to-stand (standard effect estimate 0.35, 95% CI 0.13, 0.56), and activities of daily living: SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07, 0.51; and of borderline statistical significance for measures of walking ability (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.00, 0.51), and global motor function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.01, 0.66). There were no statistically significant differences for hand/arm functional activity, lower limb functional activity scales, or sitting/standing balance/reach. CONCLUSION: Repetitive task training resulted in modest improvement across a range of lower limb outcome measures, but not upper limb outcome measures. Training may be sufficient to have a small impact on activities of daily living. Interventions involving elements of repetition and task training are diverse and difficult to classify: the results presented are specific to trials where both elements are clearly present in the intervention, without major confounding by other potential mechanisms of action.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if repetitive task training after stroke improves functional activity. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing repetitive task training with attention control or usual care. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, electronic databases of published, unpublished and non-English language papers; conference proceedings, reference lists, and trial authors. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were randomized/quasi-randomized trials in adults after stroke where an active motor sequence aiming to improve functional activity was performed repetitively within a single training session. We used Cochrane Collaboration methods, resources, and software. RESULTS: We included 14 trials with 17 intervention-control pairs and 659 participants. Results were statistically significant for walking distance (mean difference 54.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.5, 91.7); walking speed (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.29, 95% CI 0.04, 0.53); sit-to-stand (standard effect estimate 0.35, 95% CI 0.13, 0.56), and activities of daily living: SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07, 0.51; and of borderline statistical significance for measures of walking ability (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.00, 0.51), and global motor function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.01, 0.66). There were no statistically significant differences for hand/arm functional activity, lower limb functional activity scales, or sitting/standing balance/reach. CONCLUSION: Repetitive task training resulted in modest improvement across a range of lower limb outcome measures, but not upper limb outcome measures. Training may be sufficient to have a small impact on activities of daily living. Interventions involving elements of repetition and task training are diverse and difficult to classify: the results presented are specific to trials where both elements are clearly present in the intervention, without major confounding by other potential mechanisms of action.
Authors: Tomoko Kitago; Jeff Goldsmith; Michelle Harran; Leslie Kane; Jessica Berard; Sylvia Huang; Sophia L Ryan; Pietro Mazzoni; John W Krakauer; Vincent S Huang Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Alex Pollock; Sybil E Farmer; Marian C Brady; Peter Langhorne; Gillian E Mead; Jan Mehrholz; Frederike van Wijck Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-11-12