Effects of physical therapy modalities for motor function, functional recovery, and post-stroke complications in patients with severe stroke: a systematic review update.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Katrin Roesner, Bettina Scheffler, Martina Kaehler, Bianca Schmidt-Maciejewski, Tabea Boettger, Susanne Saal
{"title":"Effects of physical therapy modalities for motor function, functional recovery, and post-stroke complications in patients with severe stroke: a systematic review update.","authors":"Katrin Roesner, Bettina Scheffler, Martina Kaehler, Bianca Schmidt-Maciejewski, Tabea Boettger, Susanne Saal","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02676-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physical therapy interventions play a crucial role in the daily care of patients recovering from severe stroke. However, the efficacy of these interventions and associated modalities, including duration, intensity, and frequency, have not been fully elucidated. In 2020, a systematic review reported the beneficial effects of physical therapy for patients with severe stroke but did not assess therapeutic modalities. We aim to update the current evidence on the effects of physical therapy interventions and their modalities in relation to the recovery phase in people with severe stroke in a hospital or inpatient rehabilitation facility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and three other relevant databases between December 2018 and March 2021 and updated the search between April 2021 and March 2023.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov and ICTRP for searching trial registries helped to identify ongoing RCTs since 2023. We included individual and cluster randomized controlled trials in the English and German languages that compared physical therapy interventions to similar or other interventions, usual care, or no intervention in a hospital or rehabilitation inpatient setting. We screened the studies from this recent review for eligibility criteria, especially according to the setting. Critical appraisal was performed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. The data were synthesized narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The update identified 15 new studies, cumulating in a total of 30 studies (n = 2545 participants) meeting the eligibility criteria. These studies reported 54 outcomes and 20 physical therapy interventions. Two studies included participants during the hyperacute phase, 4 during the acute phase,18 during the early subacute phase, and 3 in the late subacute phase. Three studies started in the chronic phase. Summarised evidence has revealed an uncertain effect of physical therapy on patient outcomes (with moderate to low-quality evidence). Most studies showed a high risk of bias and did not reach the optimal sample size. Little was stated about the standard care and their therapy modalities.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in patients with severe stroke. There is a need for additional high-quality studies that also systematically report therapeutic modalities from a multidimensional perspective in motor stroke recovery. Due to the high risk of bias and the generally small sample size of the included studies, the generalizability of the findings to large and heterogeneous volumes of outcome data is limited.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42021244285.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"270"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520505/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02676-0","RegionNum":4,"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: Physical therapy interventions play a crucial role in the daily care of patients recovering from severe stroke. However, the efficacy of these interventions and associated modalities, including duration, intensity, and frequency, have not been fully elucidated. In 2020, a systematic review reported the beneficial effects of physical therapy for patients with severe stroke but did not assess therapeutic modalities. We aim to update the current evidence on the effects of physical therapy interventions and their modalities in relation to the recovery phase in people with severe stroke in a hospital or inpatient rehabilitation facility.

Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and three other relevant databases between December 2018 and March 2021 and updated the search between April 2021 and March 2023.

Clinicaltrials: gov and ICTRP for searching trial registries helped to identify ongoing RCTs since 2023. We included individual and cluster randomized controlled trials in the English and German languages that compared physical therapy interventions to similar or other interventions, usual care, or no intervention in a hospital or rehabilitation inpatient setting. We screened the studies from this recent review for eligibility criteria, especially according to the setting. Critical appraisal was performed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. The data were synthesized narratively.

Results: The update identified 15 new studies, cumulating in a total of 30 studies (n = 2545 participants) meeting the eligibility criteria. These studies reported 54 outcomes and 20 physical therapy interventions. Two studies included participants during the hyperacute phase, 4 during the acute phase,18 during the early subacute phase, and 3 in the late subacute phase. Three studies started in the chronic phase. Summarised evidence has revealed an uncertain effect of physical therapy on patient outcomes (with moderate to low-quality evidence). Most studies showed a high risk of bias and did not reach the optimal sample size. Little was stated about the standard care and their therapy modalities.

Discussion: There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in patients with severe stroke. There is a need for additional high-quality studies that also systematically report therapeutic modalities from a multidimensional perspective in motor stroke recovery. Due to the high risk of bias and the generally small sample size of the included studies, the generalizability of the findings to large and heterogeneous volumes of outcome data is limited.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021244285.

物理治疗模式对严重中风患者运动功能、功能恢复和中风后并发症的影响:系统综述更新。
背景:物理治疗干预在严重脑卒中患者的日常护理中起着至关重要的作用。然而,这些干预措施和相关模式(包括持续时间、强度和频率)的疗效尚未完全阐明。2020 年,一项系统性综述报告了物理治疗对严重脑卒中患者的益处,但并未对治疗方式进行评估。我们旨在更新当前的证据,说明物理治疗干预及其模式对医院或住院康复机构中重度脑卒中患者恢复阶段的影响:我们在 2018 年 12 月至 2021 年 3 月期间检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Web of Science 和其他三个相关数据库,并在 2021 年 4 月至 2023 年 3 月期间更新了检索。Clinicaltrials: gov 和 ICTRP 用于检索试验登记,有助于确定 2023 年以来正在进行的 RCT。我们纳入了在医院或康复住院环境中将物理治疗干预措施与类似或其他干预措施、常规护理或无干预措施进行比较的英语和德语单项和分组随机对照试验。我们筛选了这篇最新综述中的研究,以符合资格标准,尤其是根据环境进行筛选。根据 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2.0 进行了严格评估。结果:此次更新共发现 15 项新研究,符合资格标准的研究共计 30 项(n = 2545 名参与者)。这些研究报告了 54 项结果和 20 项物理治疗干预措施。其中 2 项研究的参与者处于超急性期,4 项研究的参与者处于急性期,18 项研究的参与者处于亚急性期早期,3 项研究的参与者处于亚急性期晚期。三项研究从慢性期开始。汇总的证据显示,物理治疗对患者预后的影响并不确定(证据质量为中低等)。大多数研究显示存在较高的偏倚风险,且未达到最佳样本量。关于标准护理及其治疗方式的说明很少:讨论:关于物理治疗干预对严重脑卒中患者的有效性,存在相互矛盾的证据。讨论:关于物理治疗干预对重度脑卒中患者的有效性,存在相互矛盾的证据,需要更多高质量的研究,从多维角度系统报告脑卒中运动恢复的治疗模式。由于偏倚风险较高,且纳入研究的样本量普遍较小,因此研究结果对大量异质性结果数据的普适性有限:系统综述注册:PREMCORD42021244285。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信