Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory ...$

Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Cardiorespiratory training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 3 Disability - Physical Activity and Disability Scale. Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 1 Cardiorespiratory training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 3 Disability - Physical Activity and Disability Scale Study or subgroup Training Control Mean Difference Weight Mean Difference N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI 1 During usual care Subtotal (95% CI) 0 0 0.0 % 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 2 After usual care Mudge 2009 31 77.8 (55.7) 27 60.9 (67.2) 100.0 % 16.90 [ -15.15, 48.95 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 31 27 100.0 % 16.90 [ -15.15, 48.95 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.03 (P = 0.30) Total (95% CI) 31 27 100.0 % 16.90 [ -15.15, 48.95 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.03 (P = 0.30) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -100 -50 0 50 100 Favours control Favours training 103
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Cardiorespiratory training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 4 Risk factors - blood pressure, systolic. Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 1 Cardiorespiratory training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 4 Risk factors - blood pressure, systolic Study or subgroup Training Control Mean Difference Weight Mean Difference 1 During usual care N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI da Cunha 2002 6 191.33 (9.93) 6 165 (28.81) 10.1 % 26.33 [ 1.95, 50.71 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 6 6 10.1 % 26.33 [ 1.95, 50.71 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 2.12 (P = 0.034) 2 After usual care Katz-Leurer 2003 46 130.3 (15.7) 44 136.2 (19.5) 34.6 % -5.90 [ -13.23, 1.43 ] Lennon 2008 23 136 (13.3) 23 133.5 (16.7) 31.4 % 2.50 [ -6.22, 11.22 ] Potempa 1995 19 127.3 (18.31) 23 131.5 (22.54) 23.9 % -4.20 [ -16.55, 8.15 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 88 90 89.9 % -2.69 [ -8.03, 2.66 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 1.68; Chi 2 = 2.15, df = 2 (P = 0.34); I 2 =7% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.99 (P = 0.32) Total (95% CI) 94 96 100.0 % 0.40 [ -8.38, 9.18 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 44.09; Chi 2 = 7.38, df = 3 (P = 0.06); I 2 =59% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.09 (P = 0.93) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 5.19, df = 1 (P = 0.02), I 2 =81% Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -50 -25 0 25 50 Favours training Favours control 104
Page 1 and 2:
Physical fitness training for strok
Page 3 and 4:
Analysis 1.19. Comparison 1 Cardior
Page 5 and 6:
Analysis 5.10. Comparison 5 Mixed t
Page 7 and 8:
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Cardiore
Page 9 and 10:
walking speed (mean difference (MD)
Page 11 and 12:
Post-stroke physical activity and f
Page 13 and 14:
Search methods for identification o
Page 15 and 16:
• type of training (cardiorespira
Page 17 and 18:
Compliance with the scheduled exerc
Page 19 and 20:
Case fatality Number of deaths was
Page 21 and 22:
we did not include these data in th
Page 23 and 24:
(Flansbjer 2008; Kim 2001; Ouellett
Page 25 and 26:
data were, however, confounded by a
Page 27 and 28:
Vascular risk factors A few trials
Page 29 and 30:
ical function outcomes did not impr
Page 31 and 32:
We thank the Cochrane Stroke Group
Page 33 and 34:
or relaxation. Proceedings of the U
Page 35 and 36:
Dean 1997 {published data only} Dea
Page 37 and 38:
(LEAPS): a randomized controlled tr
Page 39 and 40:
with chronic stroke. Neurorehabilit
Page 41 and 42:
Askim {published data only} Askim T
Page 43 and 44:
Hobart 2002 Hobart JC, Williams LS,
Page 45 and 46:
andomized controlled trials. Clinic
Page 47 and 48:
Bale 2008 Methods Design: randomise
Page 49 and 50:
Cooke 2010 Methods Design: phase I
Page 51 and 52:
da Cunha 2002 Methods Design: rando
Page 53 and 54:
Duncan 1998 Methods Design: randomi
Page 55 and 56:
Eich 2004 Methods Design: randomise
Page 57 and 58:
Flansbjer 2008 (Continued) Allocati
Page 59 and 60: James 2002 Methods Design: randomis
Page 61 and 62: Kim 2001 Methods Design: randomised
Page 63 and 64: Lennon 2008 Methods Design: pilot r
Page 65 and 66: Moore 2010 Methods Design: randomis
Page 67 and 68: Mudge 2009 (Continued) sessions (e.
Page 69 and 70: Pohl 2002 (Continued) Exclusion cri
Page 71 and 72: Richards 1993 (Continued) Intervent
Page 73 and 74: Salbach 2004 (Continued) Interventi
Page 75 and 76: Smith 2008 (Continued) Inclusion cr
Page 77 and 78: Winstein 2004 (Continued) sive hydr
Page 79 and 80: mAS: modified Ashworth Scale MAS: M
Page 81 and 82: (Continued) Franceschini 2009 Not v
Page 83 and 84: (Continued) Maeshima 2003 Not a rel
Page 85 and 86: (Continued) Thielman 2005 Not a rel
Page 87 and 88: Eng Trial name or title The effect
Page 89 and 90: Ivey (B) Trial name or title Streng
Page 91 and 92: Protas (Continued) Participants 48
Page 93 and 94: Suskin 2007 (Continued) Time frame:
Page 95 and 96: Wolff Trial name or title Effects o
Page 97 and 98: 11.2 After usual care 3 169 Mean Di
Page 99 and 100: 7 Physical fitness - maximum cyclin
Page 101 and 102: 10.2 After usual care 1 20 Mean Dif
Page 103 and 104: 13 Physical fitness - muscle streng
Page 105 and 106: 36 Mood - Hospital Anxiety and Depr
Page 107 and 108: 21.2 After usual care 1 80 Mean Dif
Page 109: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Cardiore
Page 113 and 114: Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Cardiore
Page 117 and 118: Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Cardior
Page 151 and 152: Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Resisten
Page 161 and 162:
Analysis 3.11. Comparison 3 Resiste
Page 163 and 164:
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Resisten
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Mixed tr
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Cardiore
Page 233 and 234:
Table 1. Outline of the studies whi
Page 235 and 236:
Table 3. Outline of the studies whi
Page 237 and 238:
Table 4. Pooled walking data for ca
Page 239 and 240:
#42.(physical in Abstract and (exer
Page 241 and 242:
71 8 and 36 and 70 72 limit 71 to h
Page 243 and 244:
S58. (MH “Random Assignment”) o
Page 245 and 246:
W H A T ’ S N E W Last assessed a
Page 247:
MeSH check words Humans Physical fi
show all

Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?