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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Analysis 5.20. Comparison 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 20 Mobility - gait endurance (6 MWT metres). Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 20 Mobility - gait endurance (6 MWT metres) 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 Duncan 1998 10 209.09 (110.58) 10 204.45 (121.43) 4.5 % 4.64 [ -97.15, 106.43 ] Duncan 2003 50 61.61 (70.5) 50 33.59 (51.8) 80.0 % 28.02 [ 3.77, 52.27 ] Yang 2006 24 392.8 (54.2) 24 341.3 (126.8) 15.5 % 51.50 [ -3.67, 106.67 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 84 84 100.0 % 30.59 [ 8.90, 52.28 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.84, df = 2 (P = 0.66); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.76 (P = 0.0057) Total (95% CI) 84 84 100.0 % 30.59 [ 8.90, 52.28 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.84, df = 2 (P = 0.66); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 2.76 (P = 0.0057) 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 181
Analysis 5.21. Comparison 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 21 Mobility - Community Ambulation Speed (> 0.8 m/sec). Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention Outcome: 21 Mobility - Community Ambulation Speed (> 0.8 m/sec) Study or subgroup Training Control Odds Ratio Weight Odds Ratio 1 During usual care n/N n/N M-H,Random,95% CI M-H,Random,95% CI Cooke 2010 7/35 4/32 17.9 % 1.75 [ 0.46, 6.65 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 35 32 17.9 % 1.75 [ 0.46, 6.65 ] Total events: 7 (Training), 4 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 0.82 (P = 0.41) 2 After usual care Duncan 2003 25/50 20/50 50.8 % 1.50 [ 0.68, 3.31 ] Mead 2007 12/32 12/33 31.4 % 1.05 [ 0.38, 2.88 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 82 83 82.1 % 1.31 [ 0.70, 2.44 ] Total events: 37 (Training), 32 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.30, df = 1 (P = 0.59); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.85 (P = 0.40) Total (95% CI) 117 115 100.0 % 1.38 [ 0.78, 2.42 ] Total events: 44 (Training), 36 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.45, df = 2 (P = 0.80); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.12 (P = 0.26) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 0.15, df = 1 (P = 0.70), I 2 =0.0% 0.005 0.1 1 10 200 Favours control Favours training Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 182
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:
Page 137 and 138: Analysis 2.5. 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 187: Analysis 5.19. 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?