比较物理康复干预对脑卒中后功能和活动能力恢复的有效性:一项荟萃分析。

Seung Nam Yang, Doo Young Kim
{"title":"比较物理康复干预对脑卒中后功能和活动能力恢复的有效性:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Seung Nam Yang,&nbsp;Doo Young Kim","doi":"10.12786/bn.2023.16.e17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Various interventions to physical rehabilitation have been used after stroke, including musculoskeletal, neurophysiological, and motor learning interventions, with ongoing debates and controversies about their relative effectiveness. In this systematic review, we searched 3 international electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared motor relearning, neurophysiological, and musculoskeletal interventions for improving motor function in adult stroke patients. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using Cochrane's RoB tool, and meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.4 with a random effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations method. The meta-analysis for immediate outcome for physical rehabilitation included 9 RCTs for balance, 10 RCTs for gait velocity, 7 RCTs for lower extremity motor function and 8 RCTs for performance of activities of daily living. There was no statistically significant different on improvement of balance, gait velocity, lower extremity motor function and performance of activity among physical rehabilitation interventions. Moderate-level evidence supports that no single intervention is superior. Clinicians and therapist should consider individual patient characteristics, preferences, and available resources when selecting the intervention for stroke rehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":72442,"journal":{"name":"Brain & NeuroRehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f9/37/bn-16-e17.PMC10404812.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Effectiveness of Physical Rehabilitation Interventions for Post-Stroke Function and Mobility Recovery: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Seung Nam Yang,&nbsp;Doo Young Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.12786/bn.2023.16.e17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Various interventions to physical rehabilitation have been used after stroke, including musculoskeletal, neurophysiological, and motor learning interventions, with ongoing debates and controversies about their relative effectiveness. In this systematic review, we searched 3 international electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared motor relearning, neurophysiological, and musculoskeletal interventions for improving motor function in adult stroke patients. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using Cochrane's RoB tool, and meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.4 with a random effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations method. The meta-analysis for immediate outcome for physical rehabilitation included 9 RCTs for balance, 10 RCTs for gait velocity, 7 RCTs for lower extremity motor function and 8 RCTs for performance of activities of daily living. There was no statistically significant different on improvement of balance, gait velocity, lower extremity motor function and performance of activity among physical rehabilitation interventions. Moderate-level evidence supports that no single intervention is superior. Clinicians and therapist should consider individual patient characteristics, preferences, and available resources when selecting the intervention for stroke rehabilitation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain & NeuroRehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f9/37/bn-16-e17.PMC10404812.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain & NeuroRehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12786/bn.2023.16.e17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & NeuroRehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12786/bn.2023.16.e17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

中风后,各种各样的身体康复干预措施已经被使用,包括肌肉骨骼、神经生理和运动学习干预措施,对其相对有效性的争论和争议正在进行中。在本系统综述中,我们检索了3个国际电子数据库(MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane Library)以确定相关研究。我们只纳入了直接比较运动再学习、神经生理和肌肉骨骼干预改善成年中风患者运动功能的随机对照试验(rct)。采用Cochrane的RoB工具进行偏倚风险(Risk of bias, RoB)评估,采用Revman 5.4进行meta分析,采用随机效应模型。采用推荐分级、评估、发展和评价方法评估证据的确定性。物理康复的即时结果荟萃分析包括9项关于平衡的随机对照试验,10项关于步态速度的随机对照试验,7项关于下肢运动功能的随机对照试验和8项关于日常生活活动表现的随机对照试验。在平衡、步态速度、下肢运动功能和活动表现的改善方面,物理康复干预的差异无统计学意义。中等水平的证据支持没有单一的干预措施是优越的。临床医生和治疗师在选择卒中康复干预措施时应考虑患者个体特征、偏好和可用资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Comparing the Effectiveness of Physical Rehabilitation Interventions for Post-Stroke Function and Mobility Recovery: A Meta-Analysis.

Various interventions to physical rehabilitation have been used after stroke, including musculoskeletal, neurophysiological, and motor learning interventions, with ongoing debates and controversies about their relative effectiveness. In this systematic review, we searched 3 international electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared motor relearning, neurophysiological, and musculoskeletal interventions for improving motor function in adult stroke patients. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using Cochrane's RoB tool, and meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.4 with a random effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations method. The meta-analysis for immediate outcome for physical rehabilitation included 9 RCTs for balance, 10 RCTs for gait velocity, 7 RCTs for lower extremity motor function and 8 RCTs for performance of activities of daily living. There was no statistically significant different on improvement of balance, gait velocity, lower extremity motor function and performance of activity among physical rehabilitation interventions. Moderate-level evidence supports that no single intervention is superior. Clinicians and therapist should consider individual patient characteristics, preferences, and available resources when selecting the intervention for stroke rehabilitation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reliability of Surface Electromyography From the Lower-limb Muscles During Maximal and Submaximal Voluntary Isometric Contractions in In-bed Healthy Individuals and Patients With Subacute Stroke. Is the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) Useful in Evaluating the Cognitive Function of Brain Injury Patients?: Through Correlation Analysis With Computerized Neurocognitive Test (CNT). Cerebrolysin Concentrate: Therapeutic Potential for Severe Oral Apraxia After Stroke: A Case Report. Sarcopenia Diagnostic Technique Based on Artificial Intelligence Using Bio-signal of Neuromuscular System: A Proof-of-Concept Study. Feasibility of Sarcopenia Diagnosis Using Stimulated Muscle Contraction Signal in Hemiplegic Stroke Patients.
×
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