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

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