I-Hsien Lin1, Han-Ting Tsai1, Chien-Yung Wang1, Chih-Yang Hsu2, Tsan-Hon Liou2, Yen-Nung Lin3. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Wan-Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Shuang-Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Wan-Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: semitune@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of various rehabilitative interventions aimed at enhancing poststroke motor recovery by assessing their effectiveness when compared with no treatment or placebo and their superiority when compared with conventional training program (CTP). DATA SOURCE: A literature search was based on 19 Cochrane reviews and 26 other reviews. We also updated the searches in PubMed up to September 30, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials associated with 18 experimented training programs (ETP) were included if they evaluated the effects of the programs on either upper extremity (UE) or lower extremity (LE) motor recovery among adults within 6 months poststroke; included ≥10 participants in each arm; and had an intervention duration of ≥10 consecutive weekdays. DATA EXTRACTION: Four reviewers evaluated the eligibility and quality of literature. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 178 included studies, 129 including 7450 participants were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Six ETPs were significantly effective in enhancing UE motor recovery, with the standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals outlined as follow: constraint-induced movement therapy (0.82, 0.45-1.19), electrostimulation (ES)-motor (0.42, 0.22-0.63), mirror therapy (0.71, 0.22-1.20), mixed approach (0.21, 0.01-0.41), robot-assisted training (0.51, 0.22-0.80), and task-oriented training (0.57, 0.16-0.99). Six ETPs were significantly effective in enhancing LE motor recovery: body-weight-supported treadmill training (0.27, 0.01-0.52), caregiver-mediated training (0.64, 0.20-1.08), ES-motor (0.55, 0.27-0.83), mixed approach (0.35, 0.15-0.54), mirror therapy (0.56, 0.13-1.00), and virtual reality (0.60, 0.15-1.05). However, compared with CTPs, almost none of the ETPs exhibited significant SMDs for superiority. CONCLUSIONS: Certain experimented interventions were effective in enhancing poststroke motor recovery, but little evidence supported the superiority of experimented interventions over conventional rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of various rehabilitative interventions aimed at enhancing poststroke motor recovery by assessing their effectiveness when compared with no treatment or placebo and their superiority when compared with conventional training program (CTP). DATA SOURCE: A literature search was based on 19 Cochrane reviews and 26 other reviews. We also updated the searches in PubMed up to September 30, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials associated with 18 experimented training programs (ETP) were included if they evaluated the effects of the programs on either upper extremity (UE) or lower extremity (LE) motor recovery among adults within 6 months poststroke; included ≥10 participants in each arm; and had an intervention duration of ≥10 consecutive weekdays. DATA EXTRACTION: Four reviewers evaluated the eligibility and quality of literature. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 178 included studies, 129 including 7450 participants were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Six ETPs were significantly effective in enhancing UE motor recovery, with the standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals outlined as follow: constraint-induced movement therapy (0.82, 0.45-1.19), electrostimulation (ES)-motor (0.42, 0.22-0.63), mirror therapy (0.71, 0.22-1.20), mixed approach (0.21, 0.01-0.41), robot-assisted training (0.51, 0.22-0.80), and task-oriented training (0.57, 0.16-0.99). Six ETPs were significantly effective in enhancing LE motor recovery: body-weight-supported treadmill training (0.27, 0.01-0.52), caregiver-mediated training (0.64, 0.20-1.08), ES-motor (0.55, 0.27-0.83), mixed approach (0.35, 0.15-0.54), mirror therapy (0.56, 0.13-1.00), and virtual reality (0.60, 0.15-1.05). However, compared with CTPs, almost none of the ETPs exhibited significant SMDs for superiority. CONCLUSIONS: Certain experimented interventions were effective in enhancing poststroke motor recovery, but little evidence supported the superiority of experimented interventions over conventional rehabilitation.
Authors: Aida Sehle; Jana Stuerner; Thomas Hassa; Stefan Spiteri; Mircea A Schoenfeld; Joachim Liepert Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Hsiang-Yun Chou; Yu-Chun Lo; Ya-Wen Tsai; Chia-Li Shih; Chieh-Ting Yeh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 3.390