Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software
Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software
Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Cardiorespiratory versus resistance versus mixed <strong>training</strong>, Outcome 1 Mobility<br />
- gait preferred speed (m/min).<br />
<strong>Review</strong>: <strong>Physical</strong> <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>stroke</strong> <strong>patients</strong><br />
Comparison: 7 Cardiorespiratory versus resistance versus mixed <strong>training</strong><br />
Outcome: 1 Mobility - gait preferred speed (m/min)<br />
Study or subgroup Training Control Mean Difference Weight Mean Difference<br />
1 Cardiorespiratory <strong>training</strong><br />
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI<br />
Cuviello-Palmer 1988 10 18.11 (9.22) 10 12.07 (6.41) 22.2 % 6.04 [ -0.92, 13.00 ]<br />
Katz-Leurer 2003 46 30.6 (10.8) 44 27 (9.6) 60.5 % 3.60 [ -0.62, 7.82 ]<br />
Moore 2010 10 37.8 (18) 10 34.8 (13.8) 5.4 % 3.00 [ -11.06, 17.06 ]<br />
Salbach 2004 44 46.8 (24) 47 38.4 (22.2) 11.9 % 8.40 [ -1.12, 17.92 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 110 111 100.0 % 4.68 [ 1.40, 7.96 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 1.04, df = 3 (P = 0.79); I 2 =0.0%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 2.80 (P = 0.0052)<br />
2 Mixed <strong>training</strong><br />
Cooke 2010 36 25.2 (23.4) 38 18 (21) 6.3 % 7.20 [ -2.95, 17.35 ]<br />
Duncan 2003 50 10.8 (12.6) 50 6.6 (8.4) 17.6 % 4.20 [ 0.00, 8.40 ]<br />
James 2002 10 12 (1.68) 8 12 (1.68) 25.7 % 0.0 [ -1.56, 1.56 ]<br />
Mead 2007 32 44.1 (6.3) 33 44.1 (6.42) 21.1 % 0.0 [ -3.09, 3.09 ]<br />
Richards 1993 9 18.78 (11.88) 8 13.5 (8.76) 6.6 % 5.28 [ -4.57, 15.13 ]<br />
Richards 2004 31 33 (21) 31 36 (21.6) 5.9 % -3.00 [ -13.60, 7.60 ]<br />
Teixeira 1999 6 61.8 (24) 7 46.8 (22.2) 1.3 % 15.00 [ -10.28, 40.28 ]<br />
Yang 2006 24 55.5 (8.1) 24 46.62 (9.24) 15.5 % 8.88 [ 3.96, 13.80 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 198 199 100.0 % 2.93 [ 0.02, 5.84 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 7.97; Chi 2 = 17.92, df = 7 (P = 0.01); I 2 =61%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 1.97 (P = 0.048)<br />
3 Resistance <strong>training</strong><br />
Bale 2008 8 13.8 (6) 10 4.8 (6) 39.0 % 9.00 [ 3.42, 14.58 ]<br />
Kim 2001 10 2.4 (7.8) 10 5.4 (4.2) 39.2 % -3.00 [ -8.49, 2.49 ]<br />
Ouellette 2004 21 38.4 (22) 21 38.4 (24.75) 21.7 % 0.0 [ -14.16, 14.16 ]<br />
Subtotal (95% CI) 39 41 100.0 % 2.34 [ -6.77, 11.45 ]<br />
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 47.20; Chi 2 = 9.18, df = 2 (P = 0.01); I 2 =78%<br />
Test <strong>for</strong> overall effect: Z = 0.50 (P = 0.61)<br />
<strong>Physical</strong> <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>stroke</strong> <strong>patients</strong> (<strong>Review</strong>)<br />
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.<br />
-50 -25 0 25 50<br />
Favours control Favours <strong>training</strong><br />
223