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

Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Cardiorespiratory training versus control - end of retention follow-up, Outcome
2 Disability - Rivermead Mobility Index.
Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients
Comparison: 2 Cardiorespiratory training versus control - end of retention follow-up
Outcome: 2 Disability - Rivermead Mobility Index
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
Bateman 2001 32 10.72 (3.3) 34 10.97 (3.35) 100.0 % -0.25 [ -1.85, 1.35 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 32 34 100.0 % -0.25 [ -1.85, 1.35 ]
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.31 (P = 0.76)
2 During usual care - ITT analysis using ’last observation carried forward’ approach
Bateman 2001 40 10.45 (3.57) 44 10.41 (3.49) 100.0 % 0.04 [ -1.47, 1.55 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 40 44 100.0 % 0.04 [ -1.47, 1.55 ]
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.05 (P = 0.96)
3 After usual care
Subtotal (95% CI) 0 0 0.0 % 0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]
Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: not applicable
Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review)
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-10 -5 0 5 10
Favours control Favours training
127