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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Resistence training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 4 Mobility - maximal gait speed (m/min). Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 3 Resistence training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 4 Mobility - maximal gait speed (m/min) 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 Bale 2008 (1) 8 17.4 (6) 10 9 (6) 30.5 % 8.40 [ 2.82, 13.98 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 8 10 30.5 % 8.40 [ 2.82, 13.98 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 2.95 (P = 0.0032) 2 After usual care Flansbjer 2008 (2) 15 3.98 (7.89) 9 4.63 (7.29) 28.3 % -0.65 [ -6.86, 5.56 ] Kim 2001 (3) 10 3 (5.4) 10 4.2 (4.8) 34.4 % -1.20 [ -5.68, 3.28 ] Ouellette 2004 21 51.6 (30.24) 21 52.2 (32.99) 6.8 % -0.60 [ -19.74, 18.54 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 46 40 69.5 % -1.00 [ -4.57, 2.57 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.02, df = 2 (P = 0.99); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.55 (P = 0.58) Total (95% CI) 54 50 100.0 % 1.92 [ -3.50, 7.35 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 17.04; Chi 2 = 7.76, df = 3 (P = 0.05); I 2 =61% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.69 (P = 0.49) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 7.74, df = 1 (P = 0.01), I 2 =87% (1) Results are presented as mean change scores (2) Data were obtained from the authors and are presented as mean change scores (3) Results are presented as mean change scores Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -50 -25 0 25 50 Favours control Favours training 147
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Resistence training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 5 Mobility - preferred gait speed (m/min). Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 3 Resistence training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 5 Mobility - preferred gait speed (m/min) 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 Bale 2008 (1) 8 13.8 (6) 10 4.8 (6) 39.0 % 9.00 [ 3.42, 14.58 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 8 10 39.0 % 9.00 [ 3.42, 14.58 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 3.16 (P = 0.0016) 2 After usual care Kim 2001 10 2.4 (7.8) 10 5.4 (4.2) 39.2 % -3.00 [ -8.49, 2.49 ] Ouellette 2004 21 38.4 (22) 21 38.4 (24.75) 21.7 % 0.0 [ -14.16, 14.16 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 31 31 61.0 % -2.61 [ -7.73, 2.51 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.15, df = 1 (P = 0.70); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.00 (P = 0.32) Total (95% CI) 39 41 100.0 % 2.34 [ -6.77, 11.45 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 47.20; Chi 2 = 9.18, df = 2 (P = 0.01); I 2 =78% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.50 (P = 0.61) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 9.03, df = 1 (P = 0.00), I 2 =89% (1) Results are presented as mean change scores Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -50 -25 0 25 50 Favours control Favours training 148
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 and 110: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Cardiore
Page 117 and 118: Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Cardior
Page 151 and 152: Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Resisten
Page 153: Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Resisten
Page 161 and 162: Analysis 3.11. Comparison 3 Resiste
Page 169 and 170: Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Mixed tr
Page 179 and 180: Analysis 5.11. Comparison 5 Mixed t
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Mixed tr
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?