Intensity of task-specific training for functional ability post-stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Rabi'u Ibrahim, Auwal Abdullahi, Abubakar Tijjani Salihu, Isa Usman Lawal
{"title":"Intensity of task-specific training for functional ability post-stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Rabi'u Ibrahim, Auwal Abdullahi, Abubakar Tijjani Salihu, Isa Usman Lawal","doi":"10.1177/02692155251351906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of intensities of task-specific training on upper and lower limbs functions, balance, and quality of life post-stroke.Data sourcesSix electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Clinical trials.gov registries) were searched up to 19 April 2025.Review methodsWe selected randomized controlled trials with at least one group involving an active repetitive motor sequence. Using an online systematic review application (Covidence), two reviewers screened the studies and extracted the data. Risk of bias was appraised using the standard Cochrane tool. Review Manager 5.4 was used for analysis.ResultsTwenty-six randomized controlled trials involving 1431 stroke survivors were included, with moderate to high risk of bias. Subgroup analyses across most outcomes (arm/hand function, lower limb function, balance, quality of life) showed no significant effects of task-specific training based on dosage variables (frequency, sessions, duration, and repetitions). Although some trends favored higher-dose task-specific training or control, only hand function improved significantly in studies with >20 sessions (SMD = 0.57, p = 0.02; I<sup>2</sup> = 69). A significant effect on arm function was seen with >50 repetitions (p = 0.001), but evidence quality was very low.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine whether higher-intensity task-specific training leads to improved functional outcomes in stroke rehabilitation. Future well-designed trials are needed to explore optimal training intensities and their impact on recovery.International prospective register of systematic reviews ID CRD42020130991.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"2692155251351906"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155251351906","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of intensities of task-specific training on upper and lower limbs functions, balance, and quality of life post-stroke.Data sourcesSix electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Clinical trials.gov registries) were searched up to 19 April 2025.Review methodsWe selected randomized controlled trials with at least one group involving an active repetitive motor sequence. Using an online systematic review application (Covidence), two reviewers screened the studies and extracted the data. Risk of bias was appraised using the standard Cochrane tool. Review Manager 5.4 was used for analysis.ResultsTwenty-six randomized controlled trials involving 1431 stroke survivors were included, with moderate to high risk of bias. Subgroup analyses across most outcomes (arm/hand function, lower limb function, balance, quality of life) showed no significant effects of task-specific training based on dosage variables (frequency, sessions, duration, and repetitions). Although some trends favored higher-dose task-specific training or control, only hand function improved significantly in studies with >20 sessions (SMD = 0.57, p = 0.02; I2 = 69). A significant effect on arm function was seen with >50 repetitions (p = 0.001), but evidence quality was very low.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine whether higher-intensity task-specific training leads to improved functional outcomes in stroke rehabilitation. Future well-designed trials are needed to explore optimal training intensities and their impact on recovery.International prospective register of systematic reviews ID CRD42020130991.

特定任务训练强度对脑卒中后功能能力的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的评价特定任务训练强度对脑卒中后上肢和下肢功能、平衡和生活质量的影响。数据来源检索截止到2025年4月19日的电子数据库(Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO和Clinical Trials .gov登记处)。回顾方法我们选择随机对照试验,至少有一组涉及主动重复运动序列。两位审稿人使用在线系统评价应用程序(covid)筛选研究并提取数据。使用标准Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险。使用Review Manager 5.4进行分析。结果纳入26项随机对照试验,纳入1431例脑卒中幸存者,偏倚风险均为中高。大多数结果(手臂/手功能、下肢功能、平衡、生活质量)的亚组分析显示,基于剂量变量(频率、疗程、持续时间和重复次数)的特定任务训练没有显著影响。虽然一些趋势倾向于高剂量的特定任务训练或控制,但在bbb20次的研究中,只有手功能得到显著改善(SMD = 0.57, p = 0.02;i2 = 69)。bbb50次重复对手臂功能有显著影响(p = 0.001),但证据质量很低。结论没有足够的证据来确定高强度的特定任务训练是否能改善脑卒中康复的功能结局。未来需要精心设计的试验来探索最佳训练强度及其对恢复的影响。国际前瞻性系统评价注册号:CRD42020130991。
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
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信