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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

(Continued) Peurala 2009 Not valid comparison (electromechanical gait training with physio assistance versus conventional physiotherapy) Pitsch 2006 Intervention not physical fitness training Platz 2001 Intervention not physical fitness training: arm ability training comprised simple functional and manipulative tasks Platz 2005 2 interventions, neither were physical fitness training Pohl 2007 Not valid comparison (electromechanical gait training with body support) Pomeroy 2001 Intervention not physical fitness training: weighted garments may offer increased resistance to muscle contraction but physical activity was neither controlled nor accurately monitored (patients log book) Quaney 2009 Not valid comparison (bicycle training versus strength training) Rimmer 2000 Patient allocation not randomised: influenced by geographical location. The intervention was physical fitness training and comprised elements of cardiorespiratory, strength and flexibility training Rimmer 2009 Not valid comparison (moderate short duration exercise programme versus long-intensity longer duration exercise programme versus rehabilitation programme including walking training and strength exercises). No valid control Shatil 2005 Intervention not physical fitness training. Control involved some strengthening Sherrington 2008 Mixed population (results are not provided separately for stroke participants) Shimada 2003 Only 25% of cohort were people with stroke (only 1 with stroke in control group) Shimizu 2002 Non-random allocation (order of admission). Only 11 of 16 participants were people with stroke Sivenius 2007 Comparison not relevant: comparison of 2 therapies Smith 1981 Intervention not physical fitness training: intensive and conventional physiotherapy and occupational therapy Sullivan 2002 Comparison not relevant: participants allocated 3 different treadmill training speeds Sullivan 2007 Not valid comparison (treadmill gait training with body weight support versus leg cycling versus upperextremity ergometry) Sunderland 1994 Intervention not physical fitness training: comparison of orthodox and enhanced physiotherapy Suputtitada 2004 Control is active walking Thielman 2004 Not a relevant comparison: resistance training versus task-related training Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 77
(Continued) Thielman 2005 Not a relevant comparison: resistance training versus task-related training Van der Lee 1999 Intervention not physical fitness training. Comparison not relevant: comparison between forced use of affected arm and use of both arms Walker 1999 Intervention not physical fitness training: occupational therapy Werner 1996 Intervention not physical fitness training: physical and occupational therapy Werner 2002 Not a valid comparison: comparison of 2 forms of training Widén Holmqvist 1998 Intervention not physical fitness training: home-based physical and occupational therapy Wing 2006 Control group exposed to exercise (upper body) Wolfe 2000 Intervention not physical fitness training: community-based physical and occupational therapy Xiao 2002 Not a valid comparison Yang 2005 Not a valid comparison: control intervention included strengthening, function, mobility and gait training after completion of usual care Yang 2007 Intervention not physical training (ball exercise programme versus rehabilitation training) Yen 2008 Not valid control (not usual care) Yokokawa 1999 Ongoing rehabilitation classes were randomised, not individuals; this is biased Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID] AMBULATE Trial name or title AMBULATE Methods Prospective randomised clinical trial; blinded assessment Participants 122 participants Inclusion criteria: > 18 years old; < 5 years of first stroke; able to walk 10 metres unaided or with a singlepoint stick; 10 metre walk time > 9 seconds; finished formal rehabilitation; able to gain medical clearance to participate Exclusion criteria: any barriers to taking part in a physical rehabilitation program; insufficient cognition/ language Interventions Intervention: Group 1 - treadmill and overground walking program 30 minutes/day 3 days/week for 4 months; Group 2 - treadmill and overground walking program 30 minutes/day 3 days/week for 2 months Control: no intervention Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 78
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 and 82: (Continued) Franceschini 2009 Not v
Page 83: (Continued) Maeshima 2003 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 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?