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.
Ouellette 2004 (Continued)<br />
using pneumatic resistance, and unilateral ankle; dorsiflexion; plantarflexion, both using<br />
weights; progression achieved via weekly assessment of 1-RM; warm up <strong>for</strong> each exercise<br />
was 4 repetitions of 25% 1-RM<br />
Control: non-exercise: bilateral range of motion and upper body flexibility exercises 3 days/<br />
week <strong>for</strong> 12 weeks<br />
Setting: exercise laboratory<br />
Outcomes Included outcomes: muscle strength (bilateral lower limb extension <strong>for</strong>ce); muscle strength<br />
(unilateral knee extension, ankle dorsiflexion and ankle plantarflexion); gait endurance<br />
(6MWT), preferred speed (10 metres) and maximal speed (10 metres); chair rise time (5<br />
repetitions); stair climb time (10 steps); late life function and disability instrument scale;<br />
SF-36 physical function subscale<br />
Other outcomes: muscle power - bilateral lower limb extension and unilateral knee extension;<br />
geriatric depression scale (data not reported); sickness impact profile; Ewarts selfefficacy<br />
scale<br />
Notes Variance reported as standard error and converted to standard deviation<br />
Risk of bias<br />
Bias Authors’ judgement Support <strong>for</strong> judgement<br />
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported<br />
Pohl 2002<br />
Methods Design: randomised trial of cardiorespiratory <strong>training</strong> plus % usual care versus usual care<br />
- during usual care<br />
Randomisation mechanism: unknown; method: equal block based on gait speed<br />
Allocation concealment: unknown<br />
Blinding: investigator; efficacy unknown<br />
Intention-to-treat: no<br />
Measurements: end of intervention (4 weeks)<br />
Withdrawals: none<br />
Participants Randomised: 60 participants. 20 participants were randomised to the speed-dependent<br />
treadmill <strong>training</strong> group (STT); 20 participants to the limited progressive treadmill <strong>training</strong><br />
group (LTT) and 20 participants to a conventional gait <strong>training</strong> group (CGT).<br />
Intervention: STT group = 20 participants; 14 males, 6 females; age 57.1 years (SD 13.9);<br />
16.8 (20.5) weeks post-<strong>stroke</strong>. LTT group = 20 participants; 16 males, 4 females; age 58.2<br />
years (SD 10.5); 16.2 (16.4) weeks post-<strong>stroke</strong>.<br />
Control: 20 participants; 13 males, 7 females; age 61.6 years (SD 10.6); 16.10 (SD 18.5)<br />
weeks post-<strong>stroke</strong><br />
Inclusion criteria: left or right hemiparesis <strong>for</strong> > 4 weeks; impaired gait; no or slight abnormal<br />
muscle tone (Ashworth Score 0 and 1); walk without assistance (FAC = 3); 10-metre walk<br />
time > 5 seconds and < 60 seconds; class B exercise risk (ACSM 1998); absence of known<br />
heart disease; no evidence of heart failure, ischaemia or angina at rest or exercise; appropriate<br />
rise in systolic blood pressure and absence of ventricular tachycardia during exercise<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 />
61