Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software
Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software
Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 Cardiorespiratory <strong>training</strong> versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 12<br />
Mobility - maximal gait speed (m/min over 5 to 10 metres); subgroup: ACSM.<br />
<strong>Review</strong>: <strong>Physical</strong> <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>stroke</strong> <strong>patients</strong><br />
Comparison: 1 Cardiorespiratory <strong>training</strong> versus control - end of intervention<br />
Outcome: 12 Mobility - maximal gait speed (m/min over 5 to 10 metres); subgroup: ACSM<br />
Study or subgroup Training Control Mean Difference Weight Mean Difference<br />
1 ACSM criteria met<br />
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI<br />
Bateman 2001 36 16 (11.06) 37 16.22 (19.49) 24.0 % -0.22 [ -7.47, 7.03 ]<br />
Eich 2004 25 42.6 (18) 25 36 (13.2) 20.4 % 6.60 [ -2.15, 15.35 ]<br />
Moore 2010 10 54.6 (26.4) 10 46.2 (19.2) 6.6 % 8.40 [ -11.83, 28.63 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 71 72 50.9 % 2.97 [ -2.41, 8.35 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 1.68, df = 2 (P = 0.43); I 2 =0.0%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 1.08 (P = 0.28)<br />
2 ACSM criteria unknown<br />
Mudge 2009 31 47.4 (16.8) 27 37.8 (15) 21.7 % 9.60 [ 1.42, 17.78 ]<br />
Pohl 2002 20 97.8 (48) 10 58.2 (38.4) 3.0 % 39.60 [ 7.84, 71.36 ]<br />
Pohl 2002 (1) 20 73.2 (44.4) 10 58.2 (38.4) 3.1 % 15.00 [ -15.74, 45.74 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 71 47 27.8 % 16.24 [ 0.40, 32.07 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 88.05; Chi 2 = 3.26, df = 2 (P = 0.20); I 2 =39%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 2.01 (P = 0.044)<br />
3 ACSM criteria not met<br />
da Cunha 2002 6 35.4 (17.4) 7 16.2 (13.8) 8.5 % 19.20 [ 1.93, 36.47 ]<br />
Salbach 2004 44 59.4 (33.6) 47 48 (29.4) 12.8 % 11.40 [ -1.61, 24.41 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 50 54 21.3 % 14.22 [ 3.83, 24.61 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.50, df = 1 (P = 0.48); I 2 =0.0%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 2.68 (P = 0.0073)<br />
Total (95% CI) 192 173 100.0 % 8.66 [ 2.98, 14.34 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 21.33; Chi 2 = 10.89, df = 7 (P = 0.14); I 2 =36%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 2.99 (P = 0.0028)<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 5.22, df = 2 (P = 0.07), I 2 =62%<br />
-50 -25 0 25 50<br />
Favours control Favours <strong>training</strong><br />
(1) Pohl 2002 included three intervention arms with 20 participants in each arm. The data were subdivided in two relevant comparisons. Half of the participants in<br />
the control group (10<br />
participants) were used <strong>for</strong> each comparison to avoid inflation of overall numbers.<br />
<strong>Physical</strong> <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>stroke</strong> <strong>patients</strong> (<strong>Review</strong>)<br />
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.<br />
112