BACKGROUND: Various approaches to physical rehabilitation to improve function and mobility are used after stroke. There is considerable controversy around the relative effectiveness of approaches, and little known about optimal delivery and dose. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use components from several different approaches.
OBJECTIVES: Primary objective: To determine whether physical rehabilitation is effective for recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: To explore factors that may impact the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation approaches, including time after stroke, geographical location of study, intervention dose/duration, intervention provider, and treatment components. Stakeholder involvement: Key aims were to clarify the focus of the review, inform decisions about subgroup analyses, and co-produce statements relating to key implications.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched November 2022), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2022), Embase (1980 to November 2022), AMED (1985 to November 2022), CINAHL (1982 to November 2022), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (to November 2022).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical rehabilitation approaches aimed at promoting the recovery of function or mobility in adult participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: RCTs of upper limb function or single treatment components.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES: measures of independence in activities of daily living (IADL) and motor function.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES: balance, gait velocity, and length of stay.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors selected studies according to pre-defined eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: In this review update, we included 267 studies (21,838 participants). Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with half (133/267) in China. Generally, studies were heterogeneous, and often poorly reported. We judged only 14 studies in meta-analyses as at low risk of bias for all domains and, on average, we considered 33% of studies in analyses of primary outcomes at high risk of bias. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than no (or minimal) physical rehabilitation? Compared to no physical rehabilitation, physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.56; 52 studies, 5403 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 50 studies, 5669 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of long-term benefits for these outcomes. Physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 4.54, 95% CI 1.36 to 7.72; 9 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves gait velocity (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42; 18 studies, 1131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but with no evidence of long-term benefits. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than attention control? The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation, as compared to attention control, on IADL (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.75; 2 studies, 106 participants), motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.38; 5 studies, 237 participants), and balance (MD 6.61, 95% CI -0.45 to 13.66; 4 studies, 240 participants). Physical rehabilitation likely improves gait speed when compared to attention control (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 7 studies, 405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Does additional physical rehabilitation improve outcomes? Additional physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (SMD 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.71; 21 studies, 1972 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 22 studies, 1965 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Additional physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 5.74, 95% CI 3.78 to 7.71; 15 studies, 795 participants; low-certainty evidence) and gait velocity (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91; 19 studies, 1004 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Is any one approach to physical rehabilitation more effective than any other approach? Compared to other approaches, those that focus on functional task training may improve IADL (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; 22 studies, 1535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; 20 studies, 1671 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence in the latter is very uncertain. The benefit was sustained long-term. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of functional task training on balance (MD 2.16, 95% CI -0.24 to 4.55) and gait velocity (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.56). Compared to other approaches, neurophysiological approaches may be less effective than other approaches in improving IADL (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06; 14 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence), and there may be no difference in improving motor function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.32 to 0.12; 13 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence), balance (MD -0.60, 95% CI -5.90 to 6.03; 9 studies, 292 participants; low-certainty evidence), and gait velocity (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.27; 16 studies, 630 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on gait velocity. For all comparisons, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation on adverse events and length of hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical rehabilitation, using a mix of different treatment components, likely improves recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Additional physical rehabilitation, delivered as an adjunct to 'usual' rehabilitation, may provide added benefits. Physical rehabilitation approaches that focus on functional task training may be useful. Neurophysiological approaches to physical rehabilitation may be no different from, or less effective than, other physical rehabilitation approaches. Certainty in this evidence is limited due to substantial heterogeneity, with mainly small studies and important differences between study populations and interventions. We feel it is unlikely that any studies published since November 2022 would alter our conclusions. Given the size of this review, future updates warrant consensus discussion amongst stakeholders to ensure the most relevant questions are explored for optimal decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Physical 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 FINDINGS: Randomized 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; I(2) = 0%) for therapeutic positioning of the paretic arm to 2.47 (95%CI 0.84-4.11; I(2) = 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; I(2) = 6%) for motor function of the paretic arm to 0.61 (95%CI 0.41-0.82; I(2) = 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.
CONCLUSIONS: There 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.
Various approaches to physical rehabilitation to improve function and mobility are used after stroke. There is considerable controversy around the relative effectiveness of approaches, and little known about optimal delivery and dose. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use components from several different approaches.
OBJECTIVES:
Primary objective: To determine whether physical rehabilitation is effective for recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE:
To explore factors that may impact the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation approaches, including time after stroke, geographical location of study, intervention dose/duration, intervention provider, and treatment components. Stakeholder involvement: Key aims were to clarify the focus of the review, inform decisions about subgroup analyses, and co-produce statements relating to key implications.
SEARCH METHODS:
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched November 2022), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2022), Embase (1980 to November 2022), AMED (1985 to November 2022), CINAHL (1982 to November 2022), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (to November 2022).
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical rehabilitation approaches aimed at promoting the recovery of function or mobility in adult participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:
RCTs of upper limb function or single treatment components.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES:
measures of independence in activities of daily living (IADL) and motor function.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES:
balance, gait velocity, and length of stay.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two independent authors selected studies according to pre-defined eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
In this review update, we included 267 studies (21,838 participants). Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with half (133/267) in China. Generally, studies were heterogeneous, and often poorly reported. We judged only 14 studies in meta-analyses as at low risk of bias for all domains and, on average, we considered 33% of studies in analyses of primary outcomes at high risk of bias. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than no (or minimal) physical rehabilitation? Compared to no physical rehabilitation, physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.56; 52 studies, 5403 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 50 studies, 5669 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of long-term benefits for these outcomes. Physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 4.54, 95% CI 1.36 to 7.72; 9 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves gait velocity (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42; 18 studies, 1131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but with no evidence of long-term benefits. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than attention control? The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation, as compared to attention control, on IADL (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.75; 2 studies, 106 participants), motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.38; 5 studies, 237 participants), and balance (MD 6.61, 95% CI -0.45 to 13.66; 4 studies, 240 participants). Physical rehabilitation likely improves gait speed when compared to attention control (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 7 studies, 405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Does additional physical rehabilitation improve outcomes? Additional physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (SMD 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.71; 21 studies, 1972 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 22 studies, 1965 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Additional physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 5.74, 95% CI 3.78 to 7.71; 15 studies, 795 participants; low-certainty evidence) and gait velocity (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91; 19 studies, 1004 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Is any one approach to physical rehabilitation more effective than any other approach? Compared to other approaches, those that focus on functional task training may improve IADL (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; 22 studies, 1535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; 20 studies, 1671 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence in the latter is very uncertain. The benefit was sustained long-term. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of functional task training on balance (MD 2.16, 95% CI -0.24 to 4.55) and gait velocity (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.56). Compared to other approaches, neurophysiological approaches may be less effective than other approaches in improving IADL (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06; 14 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence), and there may be no difference in improving motor function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.32 to 0.12; 13 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence), balance (MD -0.60, 95% CI -5.90 to 6.03; 9 studies, 292 participants; low-certainty evidence), and gait velocity (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.27; 16 studies, 630 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on gait velocity. For all comparisons, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation on adverse events and length of hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Physical rehabilitation, using a mix of different treatment components, likely improves recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Additional physical rehabilitation, delivered as an adjunct to 'usual' rehabilitation, may provide added benefits. Physical rehabilitation approaches that focus on functional task training may be useful. Neurophysiological approaches to physical rehabilitation may be no different from, or less effective than, other physical rehabilitation approaches. Certainty in this evidence is limited due to substantial heterogeneity, with mainly small studies and important differences between study populations and interventions. We feel it is unlikely that any studies published since November 2022 would alter our conclusions. Given the size of this review, future updates warrant consensus discussion amongst stakeholders to ensure the most relevant questions are explored for optimal decision-making.
