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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
(Continued)<br />
Peurala 2009 Not valid comparison (electromechanical gait <strong>training</strong> with physio assistance versus conventional physiotherapy)<br />
Pitsch 2006 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Platz 2001 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: arm ability <strong>training</strong> comprised simple functional and manipulative<br />
tasks<br />
Platz 2005 2 interventions, neither were physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong><br />
Pohl 2007 Not valid comparison (electromechanical gait <strong>training</strong> with body support)<br />
Pomeroy 2001 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: weighted garments may offer increased resistance to muscle<br />
contraction but physical activity was neither controlled nor accurately monitored (<strong>patients</strong> log book)<br />
Quaney 2009 Not valid comparison (bicycle <strong>training</strong> versus strength <strong>training</strong>)<br />
Rimmer 2000 Patient allocation not randomised: influenced by geographical location. The intervention was physical<br />
<strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong> and comprised elements of cardiorespiratory, strength and flexibility <strong>training</strong><br />
Rimmer 2009 Not valid comparison (moderate short duration exercise programme versus long-intensity longer duration<br />
exercise programme versus rehabilitation programme including walking <strong>training</strong> and strength exercises).<br />
No valid control<br />
Shatil 2005 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>. Control involved some strengthening<br />
Sherrington 2008 Mixed population (results are not provided separately <strong>for</strong> <strong>stroke</strong> participants)<br />
Shimada 2003 Only 25% of cohort were people with <strong>stroke</strong> (only 1 with <strong>stroke</strong> in control group)<br />
Shimizu 2002 Non-random allocation (order of admission). Only 11 of 16 participants were people with <strong>stroke</strong><br />
Sivenius 2007 Comparison not relevant: comparison of 2 therapies<br />
Smith 1981 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: intensive and conventional physiotherapy and occupational<br />
therapy<br />
Sullivan 2002 Comparison not relevant: participants allocated 3 different treadmill <strong>training</strong> speeds<br />
Sullivan 2007 Not valid comparison (treadmill gait <strong>training</strong> with body weight support versus leg cycling versus upperextremity<br />
ergometry)<br />
Sunderland 1994 Intervention not physical <strong>fitness</strong> <strong>training</strong>: comparison of orthodox and enhanced physiotherapy<br />
Suputtitada 2004 Control is active walking<br />
Thielman 2004 Not a relevant comparison: resistance <strong>training</strong> versus task-related <strong>training</strong><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 />
77
Change language