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.
(Continued)<br />
Franceschini 2009 Not valid comparison (treadmill gait <strong>training</strong> versus overground gait <strong>training</strong>)<br />
Gelber 1995 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: comparison of traditional functional re<strong>training</strong> and neurodevelopmental<br />
techniques. No relevant comparisons<br />
Gilbertson 1998 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: home-based occupational therapy<br />
Gregson 2006 Intervention was not <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>, it was repetitive practice with no progression of exercise load except<br />
<strong>for</strong> some participants initially unable to complete the target number of repetitions (10)<br />
Harrington 2010 Not valid comparison (exercise and education programme versus standard care)<br />
Harris 2009 Intervention does not meet the criteria <strong>for</strong> physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong> (upper limb supplementary programme)<br />
Hart 2004 Control intervention not a valid comparison: not usual care, not non-exercise, and balance exercises<br />
confound<br />
Helbostad 2004 Only 16 of 77 participants with <strong>stroke</strong>. Not a valid comparison, both groups receiving home <strong>training</strong><br />
Hidler 2007 No a valid comparison: comparison of 2 types of <strong>training</strong><br />
Higgins 2006 Intervention not <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: experimental group dexterity practice. Control group not valid: included<br />
physical activity (walking)<br />
Howe 2005 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Hu 2003 Intervention (Bobath) not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Hu 2006 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Ishida 2001 Regular rehabilitation was suspended in some participants during a period of usual care<br />
Not an exercise intervention<br />
Jeong 2007 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong> (rhythmic music and specialised rehabilitation movements)<br />
Jongbloed 1989 No relevant control group: comparison of 2 occupational therapy interventions. Interventions not physical<br />
<strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Jongbloed 1991 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: occupational therapy related to leisure activities<br />
Kamps 2005 Not relevant control group: participants recruited after usual care yet were exposed to physiotherapy and<br />
’ergotherapeutic’ interventions<br />
Klassen 2005 Not a valid control group: low intensity upper body exercise<br />
Kwakkel 1999 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: investigation of rehabilitation of functional tasks. The principal<br />
author clarified that there was no progression of <strong>training</strong> intensity, the content of <strong>training</strong> was variable,<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 />
74