Cochrane · systematic review · CD007030

Interventions for post‐stroke fatigue

Wu, S, Kutlubaev, MA, Chun, HYY, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · 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
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

Interventions specifically targeting the treatment of post‐stroke fatigue

Population: people with stroke with fatigue
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Fatigue severity at the end of pharmacological treatment (assessed by different fatigue scales)
no estimate extracted4 studies · 209 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness
Fatigue severity at the end of non‐pharmacological treatment (assessed by different fatigue scales)
no estimate extracted2 studies · 35 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness

Interventions not specifically targeting post‐stroke fatigue

Population: people with stroke not necessarily having fatigue
3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Fatigue severity at the end of treatment (assessed by Fatigue Severity Scale)
no estimate extracted1 study · 32 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness
Changes of fatigue scores from baseline to after treatment (assessed by energy/fatigue scale from the Medical Outcomes Study)
no estimate extracted1 study · 125 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness
Proportion of participants with fatigue after treatment (assessed by the self report by participants)
RR 0.421 study · 31 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness