Keith R Lohse1, Catherine E Lang2, Lara A Boyd2. 1. From the School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, AL (K.R.L.); School of Kinesiology (K.R.L.) and Department of Physical Therapy (L.A.B.), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; and Program in Physical Therapy, Program in Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO (C.E.L.). kelopelli@gmail.com. 2. From the School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, AL (K.R.L.); School of Kinesiology (K.R.L.) and Department of Physical Therapy (L.A.B.), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; and Program in Physical Therapy, Program in Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO (C.E.L.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neurophysiological models of rehabilitation and recovery suggest that a large volume of specific practice is required to induce the neuroplastic changes that underlie behavioral recovery. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the relationship between time scheduled for therapy and improvement in motor therapy for adults after stroke by (1) comparing high doses to low doses and (2) using metaregression to quantify the dose-response relationship further. METHODS: Databases were searched to find randomized controlled trials that were not dosage matched for total time scheduled for therapy. Regression models were used to predict improvement during therapy as a function of total time scheduled for therapy and years after stroke. RESULTS: Overall, treatment groups receiving more therapy improved beyond control groups that received less (g=0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.45). Furthermore, increased time scheduled for therapy was a significant predictor of increased improvement by itself and when controlling for linear and quadratic effects of time after stroke. CONCLUSIONS: There is a positive relationship between the time scheduled for therapy and therapy outcomes. These data suggest that large doses of therapy lead to clinically meaningful improvements, controlling for time after stroke. Currently, trials report time scheduled for therapy as a measure of therapy dose. Preferable measures of dose would be active time in therapy or repetitions of an exercise.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neurophysiological models of rehabilitation and recovery suggest that a large volume of specific practice is required to induce the neuroplastic changes that underlie behavioral recovery. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the relationship between time scheduled for therapy and improvement in motor therapy for adults after stroke by (1) comparing high doses to low doses and (2) using metaregression to quantify the dose-response relationship further. METHODS: Databases were searched to find randomized controlled trials that were not dosage matched for total time scheduled for therapy. Regression models were used to predict improvement during therapy as a function of total time scheduled for therapy and years after stroke. RESULTS: Overall, treatment groups receiving more therapy improved beyond control groups that received less (g=0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.45). Furthermore, increased time scheduled for therapy was a significant predictor of increased improvement by itself and when controlling for linear and quadratic effects of time after stroke. CONCLUSIONS: There is a positive relationship between the time scheduled for therapy and therapy outcomes. These data suggest that large doses of therapy lead to clinically meaningful improvements, controlling for time after stroke. Currently, trials report time scheduled for therapy as a measure of therapy dose. Preferable measures of dose would be active time in therapy or repetitions of an exercise.
Authors: Carolee J Winstein; Dorian K Rose; Sylvia M Tan; Rebecca Lewthwaite; Helena C Chui; Stanley P Azen Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Edward Taub; Gitendra Uswatte; Victor W Mark; David M Morris; Joydip Barman; Mary H Bowman; Camille Bryson; Adriana Delgado; Staci Bishop-McKay Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Jillian R Macdonald; Darcy S Reisman; Lara Boyd; Teresa Jacobson Kimberley; Sheila M Schindler-Ivens; T George Hornby; Sandy A Ross; Patricia L Scheets Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Matthew S Jeffers; Boris Touvykine; Allyson Ripley; Gillian Lahey; Anthony Carter; Numa Dancause; Dale Corbett Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Cory L Christiansen; Thomas Fields; Guy Lev; Ryan O Stephenson; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: PM R Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Carol L Richards; Francine Malouin; Sylvie Nadeau; Joyce Fung; Line D'Amours; Claire Perez; Anne Durand Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2018 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Tara D Klassen; Lisa A Simpson; Shannon B Lim; Dennis R Louie; Beena Parappilly; Brodie M Sakakibara; Dominik Zbogar; Janice J Eng Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2015-08-06