Emma J Schneider1, Natasha A Lannin2, Louise Ada3, Julia Schmidt4. 1. Discipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University; Occupational Therapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne. 2. Discipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University; Occupational Therapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne; John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Sydney Medical School (Northern), The University of Sydney. 3. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. Discipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada.
Abstract
QUESTIONS: In people receiving rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb after stroke, does adding extra rehabilitation (of the same content as the usual rehabilitation) improve activity? What is the amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older that had a diagnosis of stroke. INTERVENTION: Extra rehabilitation with the same content as usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb. OUTCOME MEASURES: Activity measured as lower or upper limb ability. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies, comprising 15 comparisons, met the inclusion criteria. Pooling data from all the included studies showed that extra rehabilitation improved activity immediately after the intervention period (SMD=0.39, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71, I(2)=66%). When only studies with a large increase in rehabilitation (> 100%) were included, the effect was greater (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94, I(2)=44%). There was a trend towards a positive relationship (r=0.53, p=0.09) between extra rehabilitation and improved activity. The turning point on the ROC curve of false versus true benefit (AUC=0.88, p=0.04) indicated that at least an extra 240% of rehabilitation was needed for significant likelihood that extra rehabilitation would improve activity. CONCLUSION: Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations improves activity in people after stroke. The amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect is large. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012003221. [Schneider EJ, Lannin NA, Ada L, Schmidt J (2016) Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 182-187].
QUESTIONS: In people receiving rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb after stroke, does adding extra rehabilitation (of the same content as the usual rehabilitation) improve activity? What is the amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older that had a diagnosis of stroke. INTERVENTION: Extra rehabilitation with the same content as usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb. OUTCOME MEASURES: Activity measured as lower or upper limb ability. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies, comprising 15 comparisons, met the inclusion criteria. Pooling data from all the included studies showed that extra rehabilitation improved activity immediately after the intervention period (SMD=0.39, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71, I(2)=66%). When only studies with a large increase in rehabilitation (> 100%) were included, the effect was greater (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94, I(2)=44%). There was a trend towards a positive relationship (r=0.53, p=0.09) between extra rehabilitation and improved activity. The turning point on the ROC curve of false versus true benefit (AUC=0.88, p=0.04) indicated that at least an extra 240% of rehabilitation was needed for significant likelihood that extra rehabilitation would improve activity. CONCLUSION: Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations improves activity in people after stroke. The amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect is large. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012003221. [Schneider EJ, Lannin NA, Ada L, Schmidt J (2016) Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 182-187].
Authors: Helen Rodgers; Helen Bosomworth; Hermano I Krebs; Frederike van Wijck; Denise Howel; Nina Wilson; Tracy Finch; Natasha Alvarado; Laura Ternent; Cristina Fernandez-Garcia; Lydia Aird; Sreeman Andole; David L Cohen; Jesse Dawson; Gary A Ford; Richard Francis; Steven Hogg; Niall Hughes; Christopher I Price; Duncan L Turner; Luke Vale; Scott Wilkes; Lisa Shaw Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Sangwoo Park; Michaela Fraser; Lynne M Weber; Cassie Meeker; Lauri Bishop; Daniel Geller; Joel Stein; Matei Ciocarlie Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Matthew W McDonald; Kathryn S Hayward; Ingrid C M Rosbergen; Matthew S Jeffers; Dale Corbett Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: David J Clarke; Louisa-Jane Burton; Sarah F Tyson; Helen Rodgers; Avril Drummond; Rebecca Palmer; Alex Hoffman; Matthew Prescott; Pippa Tyrrell; Lianne Brkic; Katie Grenfell; Anne Forster Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 3.477