{"title":"The Effectiveness of Thermal Stimulation Plus Conventional Therapy for Functional Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Daniela Celi-Lalama, Aida Soria-Vizcaino, Lucía Fernanda Flores-Santy, Felipe Araya-Quintanilla, Wilmer Danilo Esparza, Iván Cuyul-Vásquez, Héctor Gutiérrez-Espinoza","doi":"10.3390/jcm13226937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Motor impairments limit the functional abilities of patients after stroke; it is important to identify low-cost rehabilitation avenues. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of thermal stimulation in addition to conventional therapy for functional recovery in post-stroke patients. <b>Methods:</b> An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Epistemonikos, LILACS, and PEDro databases. The eligibility criterion was randomized clinical trials that analyzed the clinical effects of thermal stimulation plus conventional therapy. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. <b>Results:</b> Eight studies met the eligibility criteria, and six studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. For thermal stimulation plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone, the mean difference (MD) for function was 6.92 points (95% CI = 4.36-9.48; <i>p</i> < 0.01), for motor function was 6.31 points (95% CI = 5.18-7.44; <i>p</i> < 0.01), for balance was 4.41 points (95% CI = -2.59-11.4; <i>p</i> = 0.22), and for walking was 1.01 points (95% CI = 0.33-1.69; <i>p</i> < 0.01). For noxious thermal stimulation versus innocuous thermal stimulation, the MD for activities of daily living was 1.19 points (95% CI = -0.46-2.84; <i>p</i> = 0.16). <b>Conclusions:</b> In the short term, adding thermal stimulation to conventional therapy showed statistically significant differences in functional recovery in post-stroke patients. The quality of evidence was high to very low according to GRADE rating. The studies included varied in the frequency and dosage of thermal stimulation, which may affect the consistency and generalizability of the results. A larger quantity and a better quality of clinical studies are needed to confirm our findings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023423207.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"13 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13226937","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Motor impairments limit the functional abilities of patients after stroke; it is important to identify low-cost rehabilitation avenues. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of thermal stimulation in addition to conventional therapy for functional recovery in post-stroke patients. Methods: An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Epistemonikos, LILACS, and PEDro databases. The eligibility criterion was randomized clinical trials that analyzed the clinical effects of thermal stimulation plus conventional therapy. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Results: Eight studies met the eligibility criteria, and six studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. For thermal stimulation plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone, the mean difference (MD) for function was 6.92 points (95% CI = 4.36-9.48; p < 0.01), for motor function was 6.31 points (95% CI = 5.18-7.44; p < 0.01), for balance was 4.41 points (95% CI = -2.59-11.4; p = 0.22), and for walking was 1.01 points (95% CI = 0.33-1.69; p < 0.01). For noxious thermal stimulation versus innocuous thermal stimulation, the MD for activities of daily living was 1.19 points (95% CI = -0.46-2.84; p = 0.16). Conclusions: In the short term, adding thermal stimulation to conventional therapy showed statistically significant differences in functional recovery in post-stroke patients. The quality of evidence was high to very low according to GRADE rating. The studies included varied in the frequency and dosage of thermal stimulation, which may affect the consistency and generalizability of the results. A larger quantity and a better quality of clinical studies are needed to confirm our findings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023423207.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals.
Unique features of this journal:
manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes.
There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.