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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Analysis 6.11. Comparison 6 Mixed training versus control - end of retention follow-up, Outcome 11 Mobility - preferred gait speed (m/min). Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 6 Mixed training versus control - end of retention follow-up Outcome: 11 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 27.6 (22.2) 38 26.4 (23.4) 6.9 % 1.20 [ -9.19, 11.59 ] Richards 1993 31 39 (22.8) 31 42.6 (22.2) 6.0 % -3.60 [ -14.80, 7.60 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 67 69 12.9 % -1.02 [ -8.64, 6.60 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.38, df = 1 (P = 0.54); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.26 (P = 0.79) 2 After usual care Mead 2007 32 41.88 (6.06) 33 44.16 (6) 87.1 % -2.28 [ -5.21, 0.65 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 32 33 87.1 % -2.28 [ -5.21, 0.65 ] Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.52 (P = 0.13) Total (95% CI) 99 102 100.0 % -2.12 [ -4.85, 0.62 ] Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.47, df = 2 (P = 0.79); I 2 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 1.52 (P = 0.13) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 0.09, df = 1 (P = 0.76), I 2 =0.0% 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 209
Analysis 6.12. Comparison 6 Mixed training versus control - end of retention follow-up, Outcome 12 Mobility - community ambulation speed (> 0.8 m/sec). Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients Comparison: 6 Mixed training versus control - end of retention follow-up Outcome: 12 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 9/29 4/23 20.8 % 2.14 [ 0.56, 8.12 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 29 23 20.8 % 2.14 [ 0.56, 8.12 ] Total events: 9 (Training), 4 (Control) Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z = 1.12 (P = 0.26) 2 After usual care Duncan 2003 20/50 14/50 46.0 % 1.71 [ 0.74, 3.96 ] Mead 2007 10/32 13/33 33.2 % 0.70 [ 0.25, 1.94 ] Subtotal (95% CI) 82 83 79.2 % 1.15 [ 0.48, 2.76 ] Total events: 30 (Training), 27 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.17; Chi 2 = 1.77, df = 1 (P = 0.18); I 2 =43% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.32 (P = 0.75) Total (95% CI) 111 106 100.0 % 1.33 [ 0.70, 2.53 ] Total events: 39 (Training), 31 (Control) Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.05; Chi 2 = 2.36, df = 2 (P = 0.31); I 2 =15% Test for overall effect: Z = 0.88 (P = 0.38) Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 0.58, df = 1 (P = 0.45), I 2 =0.0% 0.05 0.2 1 5 20 Favours control Favours training Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 210
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:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Resisten
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Analysis 3.11. Comparison 3 Resiste
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166: Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Resisten
Page 167 and 168: Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 Resisten
Page 169 and 170: Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Mixed tr
Page 179 and 180: Analysis 5.11. Comparison 5 Mixed t
Page 215: Analysis 6.10. Comparison 6 Mixed t
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?