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 />
and the treadmill <strong>training</strong> volume comprised only approximately 10% of <strong>patients</strong><br />
Langhammer 2009 Not valid comparison (physiotherapy versus self-initiated exercise)<br />
Langhammer 2010 Not valid comparison (treadmill gait <strong>training</strong> versus walking outdoors)<br />
Laufer 2001 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: comparison of treadmill ambulation and overground walking.<br />
No relevant comparisons<br />
LEAPS No relevant comparisons<br />
Lee 2008 Not valid control<br />
Lennon 2009 Not valid comparison (aerobic exercises plus lifestyle counselling and risk reduction programme versus<br />
risk reduction programme)<br />
Leveille 1998 Contained few people with <strong>stroke</strong>: intervention (8%), control (9%). Not a valid intervention - other healthy<br />
living interventions included. Not a valid control - provided access to <strong>training</strong> facilities of intervention<br />
group<br />
Lin 2004 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Lincoln 1999 Interventions not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: comprised additional physiotherapy<br />
Lincoln 2003 Comparison of 2 physiotherapy approaches<br />
Lindsley 1994 This was published as an abstract only, the numerical data were not included and could not be recovered<br />
from the authors This intervention may have been <strong>training</strong> although the abstract contained no mention<br />
of progression<br />
Liston 2000 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Logan 2003 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: comprised leisure activities, although sport was included<br />
Logigian 1983 No relevant comparisons: comparison of traditional and facilitation techniques. Intervention not physical<br />
<strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: although <strong>training</strong> elements may have been included it would be difficult to separate the<br />
effect of <strong>training</strong> from therapy<br />
Lord 2008 Not valid comparison (functional gait activities in community environments versus physiotherapy including<br />
treadmill gait <strong>training</strong>)<br />
Luft 2004 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>. Control group contained physical activity not linked to usual<br />
care<br />
Luft 2008 Not valid comparison (treadmill gait <strong>training</strong> versus stretching exercises)<br />
Macko 2005 Control group is not non-exercise, or conventional treatment<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 />
75