Katharine Scrivener1, Simone Dorsch2, Annie McCluskey3, Karl Schurr4, Petra L Graham5, Zheng Cao6, Roberta Shepherd7, Sarah Tyson8. 1. Department of Health Professions, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: kate.scrivener@mq.edu.au. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Australia; The StrokeEd Collaboration, Sydney, Australia. 3. The StrokeEd Collaboration, Sydney, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. The StrokeEd Collaboration, Sydney, Australia. 5. Centre for Economic Impacts of Genomic Medicine (GenIMPACT), Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 6. Hammondcare, Sydney, Australia. 7. Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 8. School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
QUESTION: In adults with stroke, does Bobath therapy improve lower limb activity performance, strength or co-ordination when compared with no intervention or another intervention? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Adults after stroke. INTERVENTION: Bobath therapy compared with another intervention or no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lower limb activity performance (eg, sit to stand, walking, balance), lower limb strength and lower limb co-ordination. Trial quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials were included in the review and 17 in the meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the trials varied, with PEDro scale scores ranging from 2 to 8 out of 10. No trials compared Bobath therapy to no intervention. Meta-analyses estimated the effect of Bobath therapy on lower limb activities compared with other interventions, including: task-specific training (nine trials), combined interventions (four trials), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (one trial) and strength training (two trials). The pooled data indicated that task-specific training has a moderately greater benefit on lower limb activities than Bobath therapy (SMD 0.48), although the true magnitude of the benefit may be substantially larger or smaller than this estimate (95% CI 0.01 to 0.95). Bobath therapy did not clearly improve lower limb activities more than a combined intervention (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.61) or strength training (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.08). In one study, Bobath therapy was more effective than proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for improving standing balance (SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.88), but these interventions did not differ on any other outcomes. Bobath therapy did not improve strength or co-ordination more than other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Bobath therapy was inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions, with the exception of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Prioritising Bobath therapy over other interventions is not supported by current evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019112451.
QUESTION: In adults with stroke, does Bobath therapy improve lower limb activity performance, strength or co-ordination when compared with no intervention or another intervention? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Adults after stroke. INTERVENTION: Bobath therapy compared with another intervention or no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lower limb activity performance (eg, sit to stand, walking, balance), lower limb strength and lower limb co-ordination. Trial quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials were included in the review and 17 in the meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the trials varied, with PEDro scale scores ranging from 2 to 8 out of 10. No trials compared Bobath therapy to no intervention. Meta-analyses estimated the effect of Bobath therapy on lower limb activities compared with other interventions, including: task-specific training (nine trials), combined interventions (four trials), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (one trial) and strength training (two trials). The pooled data indicated that task-specific training has a moderately greater benefit on lower limb activities than Bobath therapy (SMD 0.48), although the true magnitude of the benefit may be substantially larger or smaller than this estimate (95% CI 0.01 to 0.95). Bobath therapy did not clearly improve lower limb activities more than a combined intervention (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.61) or strength training (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.08). In one study, Bobath therapy was more effective than proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for improving standing balance (SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.88), but these interventions did not differ on any other outcomes. Bobath therapy did not improve strength or co-ordination more than other interventions. CONCLUSIONS:Bobath therapy was inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions, with the exception of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Prioritising Bobath therapy over other interventions is not supported by current evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019112451.
Authors: Daniela Avello-Sáez; Fabiola Helbig-Soto; Nayadet Lucero-González; María Del Mar Fernández-Martínez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Jennifer L Moore; Elisabeth Bø; Anne Erichsen; Ingvild Rosseland; Joakim Halvorsen; Hanne Bratlie; T George Hornby; Jan Egil Nordvik Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.655