BackgroundPhysical therapy (PT) is one of the key disciplines in interdisciplinary stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the evidence for stroke rehabilitation interventions in the domain of PT.Methods and FindingsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding PT in stroke rehabilitation were retrieved through a systematic search. Outcomes were classified according to the ICF. RCTs with a low risk of bias were quantitatively analyzed. Differences between phases poststroke were explored in subgroup analyses. A best evidence synthesis was performed for neurological treatment approaches. The search yielded 467 RCTs (N = 25373; median PEDro score 6 [IQR 5–7]), identifying 53 interventions. No adverse events were reported. Strong evidence was found for significant positive effects of 13 interventions related to gait, 11 interventions related to arm-hand activities, 1 intervention for ADL, and 3 interventions for physical fitness. Summary Effect Sizes (SESs) ranged from 0.17 (95%CI 0.03–0.70; I2 = 0%) for therapeutic positioning of the paretic arm to 2.47 (95%CI 0.84–4.11; I2 = 77%) for training of sitting balance. There is strong evidence that a higher dose of practice is better, with SESs ranging from 0.21 (95%CI 0.02–0.39; I2 = 6%) for motor function of the paretic arm to 0.61 (95%CI 0.41–0.82; I2 = 41%) for muscle strength of the paretic leg. Subgroup analyses yielded significant differences with respect to timing poststroke for 10 interventions. Neurological treatment approaches to training of body functions and activities showed equal or unfavorable effects when compared to other training interventions. Main limitations of the present review are not using individual patient data for meta-analyses and absence of correction for multiple testing.ConclusionsThere is strong evidence for PT interventions favoring intensive high repetitive task-oriented and task-specific training in all phases poststroke. Effects are mostly restricted to the actually trained functions and activities. Suggestions for prioritizing PT stroke research are given.
Physical therapy is often prescribed in Parkinson's disease. To facilitate the uniformity and efficacy of this intervention, we analyzed current evidence and developed practice recommendations. We carried out an evidence-based literature review. The results were supplemented with clinical expertise and patient values and translated into practice recommendations, developed according to international standards for guideline development. A systematic literature search yielded 6 systematic reviews and 23 randomized controlled trials of moderate methodological quality with sufficient data. Six specific core areas for physical therapy were identified: transfers, posture, reaching and grasping, balance, gait, and physical capacity. We extracted four specific treatment recommendations that were based on evidence from more than two controlled trials: cueing strategies to improve gait; cognitive movement strategies to improve transfers; exercises to improve balance; and training of joint mobility and muscle power to improve physical capacity. These practice recommendations provide a basis for current physical therapy in Parkinson's disease in everyday clinical practice, as well as for future research in this field.
We present a systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Our aim was to assess prognostic factors associated with functional recovery of patients with whiplash injuries. The failure of some patients to recover following whiplash injury has been linked to a number of prognostic factors. However, there is some inconsistency in the literature and there have been no systematic attempts to analyze the level of evidence for prognostic factors in whiplash recovery. Studies were selected for inclusion following a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the database of the Dutch Institute of Allied Health Professions up until April 2002 and hand searches of the reference lists of retrieved articles. Studies were selected if the objective was to assess prognostic factors associated with recovery; the design was a prospective cohort study; the study population included at least an identifiable subgroup of patients suffering from a whiplash injury; and the paper was a full report published in English, German, French or Dutch. The methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. A study was considered to be of 'high quality' if it satisfied at least 50% of the maximum available quality score. Two independent reviewers extracted data and the association between prognostic factors and functional recovery was calculated in terms of risk estimates. Fifty papers reporting on twenty-nine cohorts were included in the review. Twelve cohorts were considered to be of 'high quality'. Because of the heterogeneity of patient selection, type of prognostic factors and outcome measures, no statistical pooling was able to be performed. Strong evidence was found for high initial pain intensity being an adverse prognostic factor. There was strong evidence that for older age, female gender, high acute psychological response, angular deformity of the neck, rear-end collision, and compensation not being associated with an adverse prognosis. Several physical (e.g. restricted range of motion, high number of complaints), psychosocial (previous psychological problems), neuropsychosocial factors (nervousness), crash related (e.g. accident on highway) and treatment related factors (need to resume physiotherapy) showed limited prognostic value for functional recovery. High initial pain intensity is an important predictor for delayed functional recovery for patients with whiplash injury. Often mentioned factors like age, gender and compensation do not seem to be of prognostic value. Scientific information about prognostic factors can guide physicians or other care providers to direct treatment and to probably prevent chronicity.
Background Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current stimulation and pulsed electrostimulation are used widely to control both acute and chronic pain arising from several conditions, but some policy makers regard efficacy evidence as insufficient. Objectives To compare transcutaneous electrostimulation with sham or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and withdrawals due to adverse events in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Search strategy We updated the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared transcutaneously applied electrostimulation with a sham intervention or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Data collection and analysis We extracted data using standardised forms and contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. Main outcomes were pain and withdrawals or dropouts due to adverse events. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and relative 4 Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee (Review)
The results indicate that higher percentages of guideline adherence are related to better improvement of physical functioning and to a lower utilization of care. A proper assessment of the relationship between the process of physical therapy care and outcomes may require a comprehensive set of process indicators to measure guideline adherence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.