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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Analysis 5.18. Comparison 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 18 Mobility - preferred gait speed (m/min). Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 18 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 Cooke 2010 36 25.2 (23.4) 38 18 (21) 6.3 % 7.20 [ -2.95, 17.35 ] Richards 1993 9 18.78 (11.88) 8 13.5 (8.76) 6.6 % 5.28 [ -4.57, 15.13 ] Richards 2004 31 33 (21) 31 36 (21.6) 5.9 % -3.00 [ -13.60, 7.60 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 76 77 18.9 % 3.37 [ -2.63, 9.37 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 1.05; Chi 2 = 2.08, df = 2 (P = 0.35); I 2 =4% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.10 (P = 0.27) 2 After usual care Duncan 2003 50 10.8 (12.6) 50 6.6 (8.4) 17.6 % 4.20 [ 0.00, 8.40 ] James 2002 10 12 (1.68) 8 12 (1.68) 25.7 % 0.0 [ -1.56, 1.56 ] Mead 2007 32 44.1 (6.3) 33 44.1 (6.42) 21.1 % 0.0 [ -3.09, 3.09 ] Teixeira 1999 6 61.8 (24) 7 46.8 (22.2) 1.3 % 15.00 [ -10.28, 40.28 ] Yang 2006 24 55.5 (8.1) 24 46.62 (9.24) 15.5 % 8.88 [ 3.96, 13.80 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 122 122 81.1 % 2.93 [ -0.50, 6.35 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 9.31; Chi 2 = 15.26, df = 4 (P = 0.004); I 2 =74% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.67 (P = 0.094) Total (95% CI) 198 199 100.0 % 2.93 [ 0.02, 5.84 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 7.97; Chi 2 = 17.92, df = 7 (P = 0.01); I 2 =61% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.97 (P = 0.048) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 0.02, df = 1 (P = 0.90), I 2 =0.0% Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -20 -10 0 10 20 Favours control Favours training 179
Analysis 5.19. Comparison 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 19 Mobility - preferred gait speed (m/min); subgroup: therapy time. Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 19 Mobility - preferred gait speed (m/min); subgroup: therapy time Study or subgroup Training Control Mean Difference Weight Mean Difference 1 Confounded N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI Duncan 2003 50 10.8 (12.6) 50 6.6 (8.4) 17.6 % 4.20 [ 0.00, 8.40 ] James 2002 10 12 (1.68) 8 12 (1.68) 25.7 % 0.0 [ -1.56, 1.56 ] Richards 1993 9 18.78 (11.88) 8 13.5 (8.76) 6.6 % 5.28 [ -4.57, 15.13 ] Teixeira 1999 6 61.8 (24) 7 46.8 (22.2) 1.3 % 15.00 [ -10.28, 40.28 ] Yang 2006 24 55.5 (8.1) 24 46.62 (9.24) 15.5 % 8.88 [ 3.96, 13.80 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 99 97 66.6 % 4.43 [ -0.13, 8.99 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 15.84; Chi 2 = 15.38, df = 4 (P = 0.004); I 2 =74% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.90 (P = 0.057) 2 Unconfounded Cooke 2010 36 25.2 (23.4) 38 18 (21) 6.3 % 7.20 [ -2.95, 17.35 ] Mead 2007 32 44.1 (6.3) 33 44.1 (6.42) 21.1 % 0.0 [ -3.09, 3.09 ] Richards 2004 31 33 (21) 31 36 (21.6) 5.9 % -3.00 [ -13.60, 7.60 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 99 102 33.4 % 0.49 [ -2.96, 3.94 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 1.44; Chi 2 = 2.18, df = 2 (P = 0.34); I 2 =8% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.28 (P = 0.78) Total (95% CI) 198 199 100.0 % 2.93 [ 0.02, 5.84 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 7.97; Chi 2 = 17.92, df = 7 (P = 0.01); I 2 =61% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.97 (P = 0.048) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 1.82, df = 1 (P = 0.18), I 2 =45% Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. -20 -10 0 10 20 Favours control Favours training 180
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:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136: Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Cardiore
Page 143 and 144: Analysis 2.11. Comparison 2 Cardior
Page 151 and 152: Analysis 3.1. 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 185: Analysis 5.17. Comparison 5 Mixed t
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?