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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

(Continued) and the treadmill training volume comprised only approximately 10% of patients Langhammer 2009 Not valid comparison (physiotherapy versus self-initiated exercise) Langhammer 2010 Not valid comparison (treadmill gait training versus walking outdoors) Laufer 2001 Intervention not physical fitness training: comparison of treadmill ambulation and overground walking. No relevant comparisons LEAPS No relevant comparisons Lee 2008 Not valid control Lennon 2009 Not valid comparison (aerobic exercises plus lifestyle counselling and risk reduction programme versus risk reduction programme) Leveille 1998 Contained few people with stroke: intervention (8%), control (9%). Not a valid intervention - other healthy living interventions included. Not a valid control - provided access to training facilities of intervention group Lin 2004 Intervention not physical fitness training Lincoln 1999 Interventions not physical fitness training: comprised additional physiotherapy Lincoln 2003 Comparison of 2 physiotherapy approaches Lindsley 1994 This was published as an abstract only, the numerical data were not included and could not be recovered from the authors This intervention may have been training although the abstract contained no mention of progression Liston 2000 Intervention not physical fitness training Logan 2003 Intervention not physical fitness training: comprised leisure activities, although sport was included Logigian 1983 No relevant comparisons: comparison of traditional and facilitation techniques. Intervention not physical fitness training: although training elements may have been included it would be difficult to separate the effect of training from therapy Lord 2008 Not valid comparison (functional gait activities in community environments versus physiotherapy including treadmill gait training) Luft 2004 Intervention not physical fitness training. Control group contained physical activity not linked to usual care Luft 2008 Not valid comparison (treadmill gait training versus stretching exercises) Macko 2005 Control group is not non-exercise, or conventional treatment Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 75
(Continued) Maeshima 2003 Not a relevant comparison: 2 exercise groups, with and without family members present Marigold 2005 Not a relevant comparison: comparison of agility and stretching/weight shifting; neither is physical fitness training Mayr 2007 Not valid comparison (Lokomat automatised gait training versus Bobath exercises) McClellan 2004 Control group not non-exercise Mehrholz 2008 Not valid comparison (automated locomotor gait training with physiotherapist assistance versus physical therapy) Michaelsen 2006 Control group is not non-exercise Miller 2000 Intervention not physical fitness training Moreland 2003 Control group not non-exercise Nelles 2001 Not a valid comparison. Intervention not physical fitness training. Included non-stroke healthy controls Nilsson 2001 Comparison not relevant: comparison of treadmill training with a physiotherapy approach to gait training (motor relearning programme) during usual care Noh 2008 Not valid comparison. Active control. Experimental group received aquatic therapy - Ai Chi - whilst control group performed gym exercises Olney 2006 Not a valid comparison: trial of supervised versus unsupervised exercise Outermans 2010 Not valid comparison (high intensity training programme versus low-intensity circuit rehabilitation programme) Pan 2004 Not a valid comparison: trial of training versus unsupervised training Pang 2006 Control group not non-exercise Pang 2008 Not valid comparison (leg exercise programme versus arm exercise programme) Parker 2001 Intervention not physical fitness training: leisure therapy and occupational therapy Parry 1999 Intervention not physical fitness training: physiotherapy using Bobath and movement science approaches Partridge 2000 Intervention not physical fitness training: comparison of amount of physiotherapy Peng 2002 Intervention not physical fitness training Peurala 2005 Not a valid comparison (control group physical activity) Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 76
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: (Continued) Franceschini 2009 Not v
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: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Cardiore
Page 117 and 118: Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Cardior
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:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Mixed tr
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
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?