Cochrane · systematic review · CD001920
Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke
Todhunter-Brown, A, Baer, G, Campbell, P, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
StrokeAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
24
current version
GRADE rated
22
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 8.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 8.3%Low 9 · 37.5%Moderate 10 · 41.7%High 1 · 4.2%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings: intervention versus no treatment
Population: adults with stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 27 studies · 3423 participants | Moderate |
Independence in ADL scales Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 540 participants | Moderate |
Motor function scales Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 25 studies · 4558 participants | Moderate |
Motor function scales Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 1829 participants | Moderate |
Balance (Berg Balance Scale) Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low |
Balance (Berg Balance Scale) Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low |
Gait velocity Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 292 participants | Low |
Gait velocity Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 271 participants | Low |
Length of stay Summary of findings: intervention vs no treatment | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 318 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: intervention versus usual care or attention control
Population: adults with stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 260 participants | Moderate |
Independence in ADL scales Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Motor function scales Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | 13 studies · 967 participants | Moderate |
Motor function scales Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 160 participants | Low |
Balance (Berg Balance Scale) Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 246 participants | Moderate |
Balance (Berg Balance Scale) Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Gait velocity Immediate outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | 14 studies · 1126 participants | High |
Gait velocity Persisting outcome Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 214 participants | Moderate |
Length of stay Summary of findings: intervention vs usual care or attention control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 105 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: one active intervention versus another active intervention
Population: adults with stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
3.1.1 Includes functional training versus does not include functional training Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcomes Summary of findings: one active intervention vs another active intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 186 participants | Low |
3.1.2 Includes neurophysiological versus does not include neurophysiological Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcomes Summary of findings: one active intervention vs another active intervention | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 451 participants | Moderate |
3.1.3 Includes musculoskeletal versus does not include musculoskeletal Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcomes Summary of findings: one active intervention vs another active intervention | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 103 participants | Low |
3.2.1 Includes functional training versus does not include functional training Motor function scales Immediate outcomes Summary of findings: one active intervention vs another active intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 188 participants | Low |
3.2.2 Includes neurophysiological versus does not include neurophysiological Motor function scales Immediate outcomes Summary of findings: one active intervention vs another active intervention | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 506 participants | Moderate |
3.2.3 Includes musculoskeletal versus does not include musculoskeletal Motor function scales Immediate outcomes Summary of findings: one active intervention vs another active intervention | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 81 participants | Low |