中风患者的心肺和阻力联合训练。

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
David H Saunders, Sharon A Carstairs, Joshua D Cheyne, Megan Fileman, Jacqui Morris, Sarah Morton, Gavin Wylie, Gillian E Mead
{"title":"中风患者的心肺和阻力联合训练。","authors":"David H Saunders, Sharon A Carstairs, Joshua D Cheyne, Megan Fileman, Jacqui Morris, Sarah Morton, Gavin Wylie, Gillian E Mead","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Levels of physical activity and physical fitness, including both cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength, are often low after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability. Multicomponent exercise interventions that increase muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness could be effective for improving physical function and disability, and for secondary prevention.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this review is to determine whether combined cardiorespiratory fitness and resistance training after stroke has any effects on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>In January 2024, we searched nine databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro, and DORIS) and two trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We also undertook reference checking, citation tracking, and contact with experts in the field, in order to identify eligible studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared combined cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength training against usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention for people with stroke.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcome domains were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function. We assessed outcomes at the end of intervention and at the end of follow-up. Our other important outcome domains were indices of quality of life, mood, cognition, and fatigue.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane tool RoB 1 to assess bias in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Where possible, we synthesised results for each outcome at the end of intervention and end of follow-up using random-effects meta-analyses on arm-level data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for critical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 30 studies with 1519 participants, who had an average age of 63.7 years. Most studies recruited ambulatory participants (28 of the 30 studies) during the early subacute (14 studies) and chronic (14 studies) stages of recovery. Most studies (26) took place in high-income countries. Most study interventions lacked a balanced dose of control exposure (23 studies). Eleven studies included a follow-up period (mean 7.3 months; range 3 to 12 months). Most interventions combined cardiorespiratory training (usually walking or ergometer-based) and resistance training (weights, machines, bodyweight or elastic resistance) in a circuit-type format. Training occurred two to five days a week for between four weeks and one year.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Combined training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (risk difference RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; 26 studies, 1352 participants; high certainty) or end of follow-up (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 8 studies, 531 participants; high certainty). Combined training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (standardised mean difference SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.36; 13 studies, 789 participants; low certainty) but has little or no effect at the end of follow-up (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.28; 8 studies, 614 participants; low certainty). Combined training does not increase or reduce the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; 8 studies, 684 participants; high certainty) or end of follow-up (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 4 studies, 285 participants; high certainty). Combined training may have little or no effect on systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference MD -1.83, 95% CI -9.60 to 5.95; 5 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty); there were no follow-up data. Combined training may improve indices of cardiorespiratory fitness and musculoskeletal fitness (lower limb strength), but the evidence is very uncertain. Few data were available at follow-up. Combined training may improve comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14; 13 studies, participants not available; very low certainty) but may have little or no effect at the end of follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 7 studies, 605 participants; very low certainty), although the evidence is very uncertain for both time points. Combined training may improve balance slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.39; 16 studies, 839 participants; low certainty) and end of follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.49; 6 studies, 535 participants; low certainty). In terms of acceptability and tolerability, interventions were closely adhered to, with no pattern of concerning adverse effects or participant losses attributable to combined training. Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) and risks of bias (e.g. from imbalanced exposure doses).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Combined training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of intervention or end of follow-up. Since these events are infrequent, conclusions cannot be drawn about any protective effect on mortality or secondary events. Small beneficial effects on physical fitness and blood pressure at the end of intervention may represent a reduced risk of secondary events, but this is very uncertain. Combined training may cause small improvements in fitness, disability, walking speed, and balance at the end of intervention. The small benefit observed for balance may be preserved after a follow-up period. The evidence for these effects is of low or very low certainty. Combined training interventions were adhered to successfully without serious adverse events or adverse effects; the interventions were acceptable to and well tolerated by participants. Limited data at follow-up restricts the conclusions we can draw about the retention of any benefits observed. Larger, well-designed trials are needed to determine the optimal regimen for exercise prescription, the benefits, and long-term effects.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316 (DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub6, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub5, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub4, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub3, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub2).</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016002"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12458986/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combined cardiorespiratory and resistance training for people with stroke.\",\"authors\":\"David H Saunders, Sharon A Carstairs, Joshua D Cheyne, Megan Fileman, Jacqui Morris, Sarah Morton, Gavin Wylie, Gillian E Mead\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD016002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Levels of physical activity and physical fitness, including both cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength, are often low after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability. Multicomponent exercise interventions that increase muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness could be effective for improving physical function and disability, and for secondary prevention.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this review is to determine whether combined cardiorespiratory fitness and resistance training after stroke has any effects on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>In January 2024, we searched nine databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro, and DORIS) and two trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We also undertook reference checking, citation tracking, and contact with experts in the field, in order to identify eligible studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared combined cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength training against usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention for people with stroke.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcome domains were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function. We assessed outcomes at the end of intervention and at the end of follow-up. Our other important outcome domains were indices of quality of life, mood, cognition, and fatigue.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane tool RoB 1 to assess bias in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Where possible, we synthesised results for each outcome at the end of intervention and end of follow-up using random-effects meta-analyses on arm-level data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for critical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 30 studies with 1519 participants, who had an average age of 63.7 years. Most studies recruited ambulatory participants (28 of the 30 studies) during the early subacute (14 studies) and chronic (14 studies) stages of recovery. Most studies (26) took place in high-income countries. Most study interventions lacked a balanced dose of control exposure (23 studies). Eleven studies included a follow-up period (mean 7.3 months; range 3 to 12 months). Most interventions combined cardiorespiratory training (usually walking or ergometer-based) and resistance training (weights, machines, bodyweight or elastic resistance) in a circuit-type format. Training occurred two to five days a week for between four weeks and one year.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Combined training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (risk difference RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; 26 studies, 1352 participants; high certainty) or end of follow-up (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 8 studies, 531 participants; high certainty). Combined training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (standardised mean difference SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.36; 13 studies, 789 participants; low certainty) but has little or no effect at the end of follow-up (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.28; 8 studies, 614 participants; low certainty). Combined training does not increase or reduce the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; 8 studies, 684 participants; high certainty) or end of follow-up (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 4 studies, 285 participants; high certainty). Combined training may have little or no effect on systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference MD -1.83, 95% CI -9.60 to 5.95; 5 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty); there were no follow-up data. Combined training may improve indices of cardiorespiratory fitness and musculoskeletal fitness (lower limb strength), but the evidence is very uncertain. Few data were available at follow-up. Combined training may improve comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14; 13 studies, participants not available; very low certainty) but may have little or no effect at the end of follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 7 studies, 605 participants; very low certainty), although the evidence is very uncertain for both time points. Combined training may improve balance slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.39; 16 studies, 839 participants; low certainty) and end of follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.49; 6 studies, 535 participants; low certainty). In terms of acceptability and tolerability, interventions were closely adhered to, with no pattern of concerning adverse effects or participant losses attributable to combined training. Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) and risks of bias (e.g. from imbalanced exposure doses).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Combined training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of intervention or end of follow-up. Since these events are infrequent, conclusions cannot be drawn about any protective effect on mortality or secondary events. Small beneficial effects on physical fitness and blood pressure at the end of intervention may represent a reduced risk of secondary events, but this is very uncertain. Combined training may cause small improvements in fitness, disability, walking speed, and balance at the end of intervention. The small benefit observed for balance may be preserved after a follow-up period. The evidence for these effects is of low or very low certainty. Combined training interventions were adhered to successfully without serious adverse events or adverse effects; the interventions were acceptable to and well tolerated by participants. Limited data at follow-up restricts the conclusions we can draw about the retention of any benefits observed. Larger, well-designed trials are needed to determine the optimal regimen for exercise prescription, the benefits, and long-term effects.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316 (DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub6, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub5, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub4, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub3, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub2).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"CD016002\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12458986/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016002\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016002","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

理由:中风后身体活动和身体健康水平,包括心肺健康和肌肉力量,通常较低,并与中风后残疾有关。增加肌肉力量和心肺健康的多组分运动干预可以有效改善身体功能和残疾,并用于二级预防。目的:本综述的主要目的是确定与非运动对照组相比,卒中后联合心肺适能和抗阻训练是否对死亡、残疾、不良事件、危险因素、适能、步行和身体功能指标有任何影响。检索方法:在2024年1月,我们检索了9个数据库(CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro和DORIS)和两个试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov和ICTRP)。我们还进行了参考文献检查、引文跟踪,并与该领域的专家联系,以确定符合条件的研究。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs),将心肺健康和肌肉力量训练与卒中患者的常规护理、无干预或无运动干预进行比较。结果:我们的关键结果域是死亡、残疾、不良事件、危险因素、健康、步行和身体功能指标。我们在干预结束和随访结束时评估结果。我们的其他重要结果域是生活质量、情绪、认知和疲劳指数。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane工具RoB 1来评估纳入研究的偏倚。综合方法:在可能的情况下,我们在干预结束和随访结束时使用随机效应荟萃分析对臂水平数据综合了每个结果的结果。对于二分类结果,我们计算了风险差(RD)和95%置信区间(CI)。对于连续结果,我们计算了平均差(MD)或标准化平均差(SMD)和95% CI。我们使用GRADE来评估关键结局证据的确定性。纳入研究:我们纳入了30项研究,1519名参与者,平均年龄为63.7岁。大多数研究招募了早期亚急性(14项研究)和慢性(14项研究)康复阶段的流动参与者(30项研究中的28项)。大多数研究(26项)发生在高收入国家。大多数研究干预缺乏平衡剂量的对照暴露(23项研究)。11项研究包括随访期(平均7.3个月,范围3至12个月)。大多数干预措施将心肺训练(通常是步行或以测功器为基础的)和阻力训练(重量、机器、体重或弹性阻力)以循环形式结合起来。培训每周进行两到五天,持续四周到一年。综合结果:联合训练不会增加或减少干预结束时的死亡率(风险差RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02至0.01;26项研究,1352名参与者;高确定性)或随访结束时的死亡率(RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04至0.02;8项研究,531名参与者;高确定性)。在干预结束时,联合训练可能会轻微改善残疾指标(标准化平均差SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.04至0.36;13项研究,789名参与者;低确定性),但在随访结束时几乎没有影响(SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.07至0.28;8项研究,614名参与者,低确定性)。在干预结束时(RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02至0.01;8项研究,684名受试者;高确定性)或随访结束时(RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06至0.09;4项研究,285名受试者;高确定性),联合训练不会增加或减少继发性心脑血管事件的发生率。联合训练可能对干预结束时的收缩压(mmHg)影响很小或没有影响,但证据非常不确定(平均差MD -1.83, 95% CI -9.60至5.95;5项研究,140名参与者;非常低的确定性);没有随访数据。联合训练可以改善心肺功能和肌肉骨骼功能指标(下肢力量),但证据非常不确定。随访时可获得的数据很少。在干预结束时,联合训练可以改善舒适的步行速度(米每秒)(MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04至0.14;13项研究,未获得参与者;非常低的确定性),但在随访结束时可能几乎没有影响(MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07至0.13;7项研究,605名参与者;非常低的确定性),尽管两个时间点的证据都非常不确定。在干预结束时(SMD为0.25,95% CI为0.11 - 0.39;16项研究,839名受试者;低确定性)和随访结束时(SMD为0.24,95% CI为-0.00 - 0.49;6项研究,535名受试者;低确定性),联合训练可略微改善平衡。 在可接受性和耐受性方面,干预措施得到了严格遵守,没有关于联合训练的不良影响或参与者损失的模式。总的来说,我们对证据的确定性受到不精确(研究和参与者数量少)和偏倚风险(例如来自不平衡的暴露剂量)的限制。作者的结论是:卒中后联合训练不影响死亡率或干预结束或随访结束时继发性事件的发生率。由于这些事件很少发生,因此无法得出关于对死亡率或次要事件有任何保护作用的结论。干预结束时对身体健康和血压的微小有益影响可能代表次要事件的风险降低,但这是非常不确定的。在干预结束时,联合训练可能会对健康、残疾、步行速度和平衡产生微小的改善。观察到的平衡的小好处可能在随访期后保留。这些影响的证据是低或非常低的确定性。联合训练干预成功坚持,无严重不良事件或不良反应;干预措施是可接受的,并为参与者良好的容忍。随访时有限的数据限制了我们对观察到的任何益处的保留所能得出的结论。需要更大规模、设计良好的试验来确定运动处方的最佳方案、益处和长期效果。资金来源:Cochrane综述没有专门的资金来源。注册:协议(和以前的版本)可通过DOI 10.1002/14651858获得。CD003316 CD003316 (DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub7 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub6 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub5 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。cd003316 pub4 DOI / 10.1002/14651858.。pub3 DOI / 10.1002/14651858. cd003316.pub2)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Combined cardiorespiratory and resistance training for people with stroke.

Rationale: Levels of physical activity and physical fitness, including both cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength, are often low after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability. Multicomponent exercise interventions that increase muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness could be effective for improving physical function and disability, and for secondary prevention.

Objectives: The primary objective of this review is to determine whether combined cardiorespiratory fitness and resistance training after stroke has any effects on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control.

Search methods: In January 2024, we searched nine databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro, and DORIS) and two trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP). We also undertook reference checking, citation tracking, and contact with experts in the field, in order to identify eligible studies.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared combined cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength training against usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention for people with stroke.

Outcomes: Our critical outcome domains were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function. We assessed outcomes at the end of intervention and at the end of follow-up. Our other important outcome domains were indices of quality of life, mood, cognition, and fatigue.

Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane tool RoB 1 to assess bias in the included studies.

Synthesis methods: Where possible, we synthesised results for each outcome at the end of intervention and end of follow-up using random-effects meta-analyses on arm-level data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for critical outcomes.

Included studies: We included 30 studies with 1519 participants, who had an average age of 63.7 years. Most studies recruited ambulatory participants (28 of the 30 studies) during the early subacute (14 studies) and chronic (14 studies) stages of recovery. Most studies (26) took place in high-income countries. Most study interventions lacked a balanced dose of control exposure (23 studies). Eleven studies included a follow-up period (mean 7.3 months; range 3 to 12 months). Most interventions combined cardiorespiratory training (usually walking or ergometer-based) and resistance training (weights, machines, bodyweight or elastic resistance) in a circuit-type format. Training occurred two to five days a week for between four weeks and one year.

Synthesis of results: Combined training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (risk difference RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; 26 studies, 1352 participants; high certainty) or end of follow-up (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 8 studies, 531 participants; high certainty). Combined training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (standardised mean difference SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.36; 13 studies, 789 participants; low certainty) but has little or no effect at the end of follow-up (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.28; 8 studies, 614 participants; low certainty). Combined training does not increase or reduce the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01; 8 studies, 684 participants; high certainty) or end of follow-up (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 4 studies, 285 participants; high certainty). Combined training may have little or no effect on systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference MD -1.83, 95% CI -9.60 to 5.95; 5 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty); there were no follow-up data. Combined training may improve indices of cardiorespiratory fitness and musculoskeletal fitness (lower limb strength), but the evidence is very uncertain. Few data were available at follow-up. Combined training may improve comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14; 13 studies, participants not available; very low certainty) but may have little or no effect at the end of follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 7 studies, 605 participants; very low certainty), although the evidence is very uncertain for both time points. Combined training may improve balance slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.39; 16 studies, 839 participants; low certainty) and end of follow-up (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.49; 6 studies, 535 participants; low certainty). In terms of acceptability and tolerability, interventions were closely adhered to, with no pattern of concerning adverse effects or participant losses attributable to combined training. Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) and risks of bias (e.g. from imbalanced exposure doses).

Authors' conclusions: Combined training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of intervention or end of follow-up. Since these events are infrequent, conclusions cannot be drawn about any protective effect on mortality or secondary events. Small beneficial effects on physical fitness and blood pressure at the end of intervention may represent a reduced risk of secondary events, but this is very uncertain. Combined training may cause small improvements in fitness, disability, walking speed, and balance at the end of intervention. The small benefit observed for balance may be preserved after a follow-up period. The evidence for these effects is of low or very low certainty. Combined training interventions were adhered to successfully without serious adverse events or adverse effects; the interventions were acceptable to and well tolerated by participants. Limited data at follow-up restricts the conclusions we can draw about the retention of any benefits observed. Larger, well-designed trials are needed to determine the optimal regimen for exercise prescription, the benefits, and long-term effects.

Funding: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Registration: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316 (DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub6, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub5, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub4, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub3, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub2).

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
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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