The Effectiveness of Thermal Stimulation Plus Conventional Therapy for Functional Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Clinical Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.3390/jcm13226937
Daniela Celi-Lalama, Aida Soria-Vizcaino, Lucía Fernanda Flores-Santy, Felipe Araya-Quintanilla, Wilmer Danilo Esparza, Iván Cuyul-Vásquez, Héctor Gutiérrez-Espinoza
{"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
热刺激加传统疗法对脑卒中后功能恢复的有效性:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:运动障碍限制了脑卒中后患者的功能能力,因此找出低成本的康复途径非常重要。本研究的目的是确定热刺激在传统疗法之外对中风后患者功能恢复的有效性。研究方法在 MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science、EMBASE、CINAHL、SPORTDiscus、Epistemonikos、LILACS 和 PEDro 数据库中进行电子检索。合格标准是分析热刺激加传统疗法临床效果的随机临床试验。两位作者独立完成了检索、研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。结果:八项研究符合资格标准,六项研究被纳入定量综述。热刺激加常规疗法与单纯常规疗法相比,功能的平均差异(MD)为 6.92 分(95% CI = 4.36-9.48;P < 0.01),运动功能的平均差异(MD)为 6.31 分(95% CI = 5.18-7.44;P < 0.01),平衡能力的平均差异(MD)为 4.41 分(95% CI = -2.59-11.4;P = 0.22),行走能力的平均差异(MD)为 1.01 分(95% CI = 0.33-1.69;P < 0.01)。有害热刺激与无害热刺激相比,日常生活活动的MD值为1.19点(95% CI = -0.46-2.84;P = 0.16)。结论在短期内,在传统疗法的基础上增加热刺激对中风后患者的功能恢复有显著的统计学差异。根据 GRADE 评级,证据质量从高到低不等。所纳入的研究在热刺激的频率和剂量方面存在差异,这可能会影响研究结果的一致性和可推广性。要证实我们的研究结果,还需要数量更多、质量更好的临床研究。PROSPERO 注册:CRD42023423207。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Co-Occurrence of Psoriasis and Asthma in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evaluation of Mesh Closure of Laparotomy and Extraction Incisions in Open and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Anticoagulation Management for Veno-Venous ECMO in COVID-19 Patients: Argatroban as Rescue Therapy in Heparin-Associated Thrombocytopenia. Comparative Effect of Insulin Resistance Reduction and Hormonal Alterations on Type 2 Diabetes Remission After Bariatric Surgery. Association Between Anaesthesiologists' Sex and Anaesthesiology Quality Metrics and Postoperative Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1