Clinical application of circuit training for subacute stroke patients: a preliminary study

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke

BACKGROUND

Various approaches to physical rehabilitation to improve function and mobility are used after stroke. There is considerable controversy around the relative effectiveness of approaches, and little known about optimal delivery and dose. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use components from several different approaches.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: To determine whether physical rehabilitation is effective for recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

To explore factors that may impact the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation approaches, including time after stroke, geographical location of study, intervention dose/duration, intervention provider, and treatment components. Stakeholder involvement: Key aims were to clarify the focus of the review, inform decisions about subgroup analyses, and co-produce statements relating to key implications.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched November 2022), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2022), Embase (1980 to November 2022), AMED (1985 to November 2022), CINAHL (1982 to November 2022), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (to November 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical rehabilitation approaches aimed at promoting the recovery of function or mobility in adult participants with a clinical diagnosis of stroke.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

RCTs of upper limb function or single treatment components.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

measures of independence in activities of daily living (IADL) and motor function.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

balance, gait velocity, and length of stay.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors selected studies according to pre-defined eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review update, we included 267 studies (21,838 participants). Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with half (133/267) in China. Generally, studies were heterogeneous, and often poorly reported. We judged only 14 studies in meta-analyses as at low risk of bias for all domains and, on average, we considered 33% of studies in analyses of primary outcomes at high risk of bias. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than no (or minimal) physical rehabilitation? Compared to no physical rehabilitation, physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.56; 52 studies, 5403 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22; 50 studies, 5669 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of long-term benefits for these outcomes. Physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 4.54, 95% CI 1.36 to 7.72; 9 studies, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves gait velocity (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42; 18 studies, 1131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but with no evidence of long-term benefits. Is physical rehabilitation more effective than attention control? The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation, as compared to attention control, on IADL (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.75; 2 studies, 106 participants), motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.38; 5 studies, 237 participants), and balance (MD 6.61, 95% CI -0.45 to 13.66; 4 studies, 240 participants). Physical rehabilitation likely improves gait speed when compared to attention control (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 7 studies, 405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Does additional physical rehabilitation improve outcomes? Additional physical rehabilitation may improve IADL (SMD 1.26, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.71; 21 studies, 1972 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.92; 22 studies, 1965 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Additional physical rehabilitation may improve balance (MD 5.74, 95% CI 3.78 to 7.71; 15 studies, 795 participants; low-certainty evidence) and gait velocity (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91; 19 studies, 1004 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very few studies assessed these outcomes at long-term follow-up. Is any one approach to physical rehabilitation more effective than any other approach? Compared to other approaches, those that focus on functional task training may improve IADL (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; 22 studies, 1535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and motor function (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.22; 20 studies, 1671 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence in the latter is very uncertain. The benefit was sustained long-term. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of functional task training on balance (MD 2.16, 95% CI -0.24 to 4.55) and gait velocity (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.56). Compared to other approaches, neurophysiological approaches may be less effective than other approaches in improving IADL (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06; 14 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence), and there may be no difference in improving motor function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.32 to 0.12; 13 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence), balance (MD -0.60, 95% CI -5.90 to 6.03; 9 studies, 292 participants; low-certainty evidence), and gait velocity (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.27; 16 studies, 630 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on gait velocity. For all comparisons, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of physical rehabilitation on adverse events and length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical rehabilitation, using a mix of different treatment components, likely improves recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Additional physical rehabilitation, delivered as an adjunct to 'usual' rehabilitation, may provide added benefits. Physical rehabilitation approaches that focus on functional task training may be useful. Neurophysiological approaches to physical rehabilitation may be no different from, or less effective than, other physical rehabilitation approaches. Certainty in this evidence is limited due to substantial heterogeneity, with mainly small studies and important differences between study populations and interventions. We feel it is unlikely that any studies published since November 2022 would alter our conclusions. Given the size of this review, future updates warrant consensus discussion amongst stakeholders to ensure the most relevant questions are explored for optimal decision-making.

Comparisons between group- and individual-based interventions to support recovery from stroke and ischaemic heart disease in the community: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To map and summarise available literature on the effectiveness or other benefits of group- and individual-based interventions provided for adults living with stroke or ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in the community.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The review was conducted based on JBI methodology and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Articles were retrieved from: Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL from 2002-2022. Extracted data from eligible studies included type of health outcomes (e.g., impairments), retention and adherence, social connectedness, and the costs associated with group- and individual-based interventions.

RESULTS

After screening, five articles (representing 4 unique studies) comparing a group- and individual-based intervention were included (total sample size n = 87). Three types of interventions were assessed: exercise (3/5), communication (1/5), and occupational therapy (1/5). Effectiveness of group- and individual-based interventions at improving health outcomes (i.e. physical ability, communication, motivation, and quality of life) is unclear. Currently there is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence comparing interventions delivered in a group and individual modality for adults living with stroke or IHD. Adequately powered studies are needed to determine if mode of delivery is equivalent or more cost effective.

Implementing circuit class training can increase therapy time and functional independence in people with stroke receiving inpatient rehabilitation: findings from a retrospective observational clinical audit

BACKGROUND

Increased therapy time and task-specific practice can improve functional recovery post stroke. This observational study aimed to determine whether the clinical implementation of circuit training increases therapy time and improves function in stroke rehabilitation.

METHODS

In a retrospective clinical audit, medical records of 110 people (mean age 78.7, standard deviation 13.0, 49.1% male, 57.3% severe stroke) admitted to a stroke inpatient rehabilitation ward were evaluated to determine the differences between pre (Individual Therapy (IT), n = 55) and post (Circuit Class Therapy (CCT), n = 55) service change implementation. The primary outcome was the amount of time spent in physiotherapy daily (minutes). Secondary outcomes included the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) score and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The CCT Group spent significantly more time in physiotherapy daily during their rehabilitation LOS compared to the IT Group (mean difference 8.45 (95% CI 5.99 to 10.90) mins, p < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed for FIM scores or LOS (p ≥ 0.066).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the clinical implementation of CCT can significantly increase therapy time by close to 9 minutes per session, with functional gains that are equivalent to usual care. This was achieved with a patient-to-staff ratio of 3:1, compared to the 1:1 ratio in IT, concurring with existing evidence in support of CCT as an alternative service delivery model for inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

Functional Training for Lower Extremities in Stroke Survivors: A Scoping Review

Engaging in meaningful and repetitive goal-oriented functional tasks can effectively enhance neuroplasticity and facilitate recovery following a stroke. This particular approach has primarily been studied in relation to functional outcomes and has predominantly focused on late subacute and chronic stroke patients. However, there is a lack of information regarding the standardized protocol of lower extremity functional training, its constituent elements, and its impact on motor recovery during the early subacute phase of stroke. The aim of this study was to examine the available evidence related to the intervention protocol of lower extremity functional training in order to identify common training elements and assess their impact on motor and functional outcomes in stroke survivors. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus, covering the period from 2000 to 2022. A total of 1786 articles were retrieved and screened based on predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 36 articles were included in this review. The primary findings were classified into categories such as intervention protocols for functional training and their constituent elements, outcome measures utilized, minimal clinically important differences (MCID) reported, and the conclusions drawn by the respective studies. Only a limited quantity of studies reported on the intervention protocol of lower extremity functional training. The majority of these studies focused on the efficacy of functional training for enhancing gait and balance, as evaluated through functional outcome assessments, particularly in the context of chronic stroke patients. In most studies, the evaluation of outcomes was typically based on statistical significance rather than clinical significance. In light of these findings, it is recommended that future studies be conducted during the early subacute phase of stroke to further investigate the impact of functional training on motor outcomes. This will contribute to a broader understanding of the benefits of functional training in facilitating motor recovery in the lower extremities and its clinical significance in stroke survivors.

The effect of game-based in comparison to conventional circuit exercise on functions, motivation level, self-efficacy and quality of life among stroke survivors

INTRODUCTION

Stroke survivors are commonly at risk of functional decline, which increase their dependency in activities of daily living and eventually affects their motivation level, self-efficacy, and quality of life. Circuit exercise has been shown to be useful in enhancing functional performance and quality of life of chronic stroke survivors. There is a need to review the existing "usual circuit exercise" and develop a better approach, such as game-based circuit exercise. Training in enriched and fun environment may possibly further promote neuroplasticity. However, evidence on inducing fun element in the existing circuit exercise among stroke survivors is limited. Also, no studies are available to date which report the benefit of circuit exercise on stroke survivors' self-efficacy and motivation level. Therefore, this study aims to assess the effectiveness of game-based circuit exercise in comparison to conventional circuit exercise on functional outcome (lower limb strength, postural stability and aerobic endurance), motivation level, self-efficacy and quality of life among stroke survivors. This study also aims to assess whether the outcomes gained from the 2 interventions could be sustained at week 12 and 24 post-trial.

METHODS

This is an assessor-blinded randomized control trial comparing 2 types of intervention which are game-based circuit exercise (experimental group) and conventional circuit exercise (control group). Based on sample size calculation using GPower, a total number of 82 participants will be recruited and allocated into either the experimental or the control group. Participants in the experimental group will receive a set of structured game-based exercise therapy which has the components of resistance, dynamic balance and aerobic exercises. While participants in the control group will receive a conventional circuit exercise as usually conducted by physiotherapists consisting of 6 exercise stations; cycling, repeated sit to stand, upper limb exercise, lower limb exercise, stepping up/down and walking over obstacles. Both groups will perform the given interventions for 2 times per week for 12 weeks under the supervision of 2 physiotherapists. Outcomes of the interventions will be measured using 30-second chair rise test (for lower limb strength), Dynamic Gait Index (for postural stability), 6-minute walk test (aerobic capacity), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaire (for motivation level), stroke self-efficacy questionnaire (for self-efficacy) and Short Form-36 quality of life questionnaire (for quality of life). All data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide the information regarding the effectiveness of including game elements into circuit exercise training. Findings from this study will enable physiotherapists to design more innovative exercise therapy sessions to promote neuroplasticity and enhance functionality and quality of life among stroke survivors under their care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN 12621001489886 (last updated 1/11/2021).

Effect of Robot Assisted Gait Training on Motor and Walking Function in Patients with Subacute Stroke: A Random Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gait training has been confirmed to have beneficial effect on the rehabilitation of stroke patients. An exoskeleton robot, named BEAR-H1, is designed to help stroke patients with walking disabilities.

METHODS

17 subjects in experimental group and 15 subjects in control group completed the study. The experimental group received 30 minutes of BEAR-H1 assisted gait training(BAGT), and the control group received 30 minutes of conventional training, 5 times/week for 4weeks. All subjects were evaluated with 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Fugl-Meyer Assessment for lower extremity (FMA-LE), Functional Ambulatory Classification (FAC), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), and gait analysis at baseline and after 4 weeks intervention.

RESULTS

The improvements of 6MWT, FMA-LE, gait speed, cadence, step length and cycle duration in BAGT group were more noticeable than in the control group. However, there was no difference in the assessment of MAS between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that BAGT is an effective intervention to improve the motor and walking ability during 4 weeks training for subacute stroke patients.

Progressive task-oriented circuit training for cognition, physical functioning and societal participation in individuals with dementia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Dementia is commonly associated with cognitive deficit, functional decline and societal participation restriction across multiple domains of functioning. The decline impacts not only on the individual, but also on their informal caregivers, healthcare and the social system. This clinical random controlled study investigated the efficacy of 12-week Progressive Task-oriented circuit training on cognition, physical functioning and societal participation of individuals with dementia.

METHODS

This study involved 31 individuals living with dementia recruited from a tertiary health institution in Lagos Nigeria. They were randomized into two groups: Progressive Task-oriented circuit training (involved in 12-week circuit training, two times a week for 70 min per session consisting of six workstations) and Control group (training with conventional treatment and home programmes). They were assessed at baseline, mid-intervention and post-intervention using Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition (ADAS-Cog), Bristol ADLs, Community integration Questionnaire, 6-min walk test. Data analysed using the independent-samples t tests, paired t tests, Friedman two-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U test (p ≤ .05).

RESULTS

Participants were aged 69.61 ± 3.44 years. There was significant improvement from baseline to post-intervention in cognition (30.77 ± 1.02 vs. 28.77 ± 3.30), physical functioning (28.19 ± 3.90 vs. 25.84 ± 6.26) and societal participation (3.64 ± 0.73 vs. 5.59 ± 2.76). However, the progressive Task-oriented circuit training had more significant improvement than the control group within the group in cognition (p = .000), physical functioning (p = .000), and societal participation (p = .000). There was no statistical difference within the Control group with cognition (p = .097), Physical functioning (p = 1.000). Meanwhile there was statistically significant effect between both groups on cognition, physical functioning and societal participation post-intervention (p < .005).

CONCLUSION

Although both Task-oriented Circuit Training and conventional treatment with home exercise programmes are efficacious, Progressive Task-oriented Circuit Training is more efficacious in enhancing and developing therapeutic strategies to train cognition, improve functional performance and societal participation in the rehabilitation of individuals with dementia.

Physical fitness training for stroke patients

BACKGROUND

Levels of physical activity and physical fitness are low after stroke. Interventions to increase physical fitness could reduce mortality and reduce disability through increased function.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives of this updated review were to determine whether fitness training after stroke reduces death, death or dependence, and disability. The secondary objectives were to determine the effects of training on adverse events, risk factors, physical fitness, mobility, physical function, health status and quality of life, mood, and cognitive function.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2018 we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and four additional databases. We also searched ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing either cardiorespiratory training or resistance training, or both (mixed training), with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in stroke survivors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Diverse outcome measures limited the intended analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies, involving 3017 mostly ambulatory participants, which comprised cardiorespiratory (32 studies, 1631 participants), resistance (20 studies, 779 participants), and mixed training interventions (23 studies, 1207 participants). Death was not influenced by any intervention; risk differences were all 0.00 (low-certainty evidence). There were few deaths overall (19/3017 at end of intervention and 19/1469 at end of follow-up). None of the studies assessed death or dependence as a composite outcome. Disability scores were improved at end of intervention by cardiorespiratory training (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.52, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 8 studies, 462 participants; P = 0.002; moderate-certainty evidence) and mixed training (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 9 studies, 604 participants; P = 0.02; low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to assess the effects of resistance training on disability. Secondary outcomes showed multiple benefits for physical fitness (VO2 peak and strength), mobility (walking speed) and physical function (balance). These physical effects tended to be intervention-specific with the evidence mostly low or moderate certainty. Risk factor data were limited or showed no effects apart from cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 peak), which increased after cardiorespiratory training (mean difference (MD) 3.40 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 2.98 to 3.83; 9 studies, 438 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any serious adverse events. Lack of data prevents conclusions about effects of training on mood, quality of life, and cognition. Lack of data also meant benefits at follow-up (i.e. after training had stopped) were unclear but some mobility benefits did persist. Risk of bias varied across studies but imbalanced amounts of exposure in control and intervention groups was a common issue affecting many comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Few deaths overall suggest exercise is a safe intervention but means we cannot determine whether exercise reduces mortality or the chance of death or dependency. Cardiorespiratory training and, to a lesser extent mixed training, reduce disability during or after usual stroke care; this could be mediated by improved mobility and balance. There is sufficient evidence to incorporate cardiorespiratory and mixed training, involving walking, within post-stroke rehabilitation programmes to improve fitness, balance and the speed and capacity of walking. The magnitude of VO2 peak increase after cardiorespiratory training has been suggested to reduce risk of stroke hospitalisation by ˜7%. Cognitive function is under-investigated despite being a key outcome of interest for patients. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, the range of benefits and any long-term benefits.

Content Reporting in Post-Stroke Therapeutic Circuit-Class Exercise Programs in randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic exercise in the form of group circuit-class training can improve mobility and gait while being cost-effective among patients who survived a stroke. Accurate clinical replication of interventions, especially when they are effective, is needed to advance research and treatment. However, replication is difficult when reporting is not detailed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of interventions within the selected studies using three different scales and to assess the criterion validity between the scales.

METHODS

Two independent assessors used the CERT, the CONTENT scale, and TIDieR checklist to review the quality of reporting of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from a recent Cochrane Review. Assessments were done independently before a consensus was reached with an experienced third reviewer mediating any disagreements. Criterion validity between the three quality reporting tools was measured using weighted Cohen's kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) for the CERT was 9.31 (±1.66) out of 19 points; the TIDieR checklist was 8.81 (±1.33) out of 12 points; and the CONTENT was 4.82 (±1.22) out of 9 points for the 16 included RCTs. The CERT and CONTENT scale had a fair agreement (k = 0.455, p = 0.064), while both CERT and CONTENT had only slight agreement with TIDieR (k = 0.143, p = 0.267; k = 0.200, p = 0.182, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate a lack of reporting from the 16 RCTs on post-stroke therapeutic circuit-class exercise programs. This presents a major barrier to knowledge translation and clinical implementation of effective exercise programs for stroke rehabilitation.

The Effects of Task-Oriented Circuit Training Using Rehabilitation Tools on the Upper-Extremity Functions and Daily Activities of Patients with Acute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of task-oriented circuit training (TOCT) using the rehabilitation tools for upper extremity function upon the daily life of patients with acute stroke.

Methods

Eighteen patients with acute stroke were randomly allocated into either the experimental group or the control group. The experimental group performed the TOCT program using rehabilitation tools, whilst the control group had neuro-developmental treatment. Both groups received 30 minutes of treatment per session, 5~6 times per week, for 4 weeks. The assessments conducted were the Fugl-Meyer assessment, motor activity log and stroke impact scale to compare the upper extremity function and activities of daily living.

Results

The results showed a significant improvement in the TOCT group compared with the neuro-developmental treatment group in the amount of motor activity use and high stroke impact score, indicating recovery (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The TOCT program using rehabilitation tools could have a positive impact on acute stroke patients use of their upper extremity.

Non-pharmacological interventions for the improvement of post-stroke activities of daily living and disability amongst older stroke survivors: A systematic review

Globally, stroke remains a leading cause of death and disability, with older adults disproportionately affected. Numerous non-pharmacological stroke rehabilitation approaches are in use to address impairments, but their efficacy in older persons is largely unknown. This systematic review examined the evidence for such interventions as part of the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (ONTOP) project conducted under an European Union funded project called the Software Engine for the Assessment and Optimisation of Drug and Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (SENATOR) [http://www.senator-project.eu]. A Delphi panel of European geriatric experts agreed activities of daily living and disability to be of critical importance as stroke rehabilitation outcomes. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and five databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) searched for eligible systematic reviews. Primary studies meeting our criteria (non-pharmacologic interventions, involving stroke survivors aged ≥65 years, assessing activities of daily living and/or disability as outcome) were then identified from these reviews. Eligible papers were double reviewed, and due to heterogeneity, narrative analysis performed. Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE assessment tools were used to assess bias and quality of evidence, allowing us to make recommendations regarding specific non-pharmacologic rehabilitation in older stroke survivors. In total, 72 primary articles were reviewed spanning 14 types of non-pharmacological intervention. Non-pharmacological interventions based on physiotherapy and occupational therapy techniques improved activities of daily living amongst older stroke survivors. However, no evidence was found to support use of any non-pharmacological approach to benefit older stroke survivors' disability. Evidence was limited by poor study quality and the small number of studies targeting older stroke survivors. We recommend future studies explore such interventions exclusively in older adult populations and improve methodological and outcome reporting.

Circuit class therapy for improving mobility after stroke

BACKGROUND

Circuit class therapy (CCT) offers a supervised group forum for people after stroke to practise tasks, enabling increased practice time without increasing staffing. This is an update of the original review published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of CCT on mobility in adults with stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched January 2017), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2017), Embase (1980 to January 2017), CINAHL (1982 to January 2017), and 14 other electronic databases (to January 2017). We also searched proceedings from relevant conferences, reference lists, and unpublished theses; contacted authors of published trials and other experts in the field; and searched relevant clinical trials and research registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people over 18 years old, diagnosed with stroke of any severity, at any stage, or in any setting, receiving CCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias in all included studies, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs involving 1297 participants. Participants were stroke survivors living in the community or receiving inpatient rehabilitation. Most could walk 10 metres without assistance. Ten studies (835 participants) measured walking capacity (measuring how far the participant could walk in six minutes) demonstrating that CCT was superior to the comparison intervention (Six-Minute Walk Test: mean difference (MD), fixed-effect, 60.86 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44.55 to 77.17, GRADE: moderate). Eight studies (744 participants) measured gait speed, again finding in favour of CCT compared with other interventions (MD 0.15 m/s, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.19, GRADE: moderate). Both of these effects are considered clinically meaningful. We were able to pool other measures to demonstrate the superior effects of CCT for aspects of walking and balance (Timed Up and Go: five studies, 488 participants, MD -3.62 seconds, 95% CI -6.09 to -1.16; Activities of Balance Confidence scale: two studies, 103 participants, MD 7.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 14.87). Two other pooled balance measures failed to demonstrate superior effects (Berg Blance Scale and Step Test). Independent mobility, as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale, Functional Ambulation Classification and the Rivermead Mobility Index, also improved more in CCT interventions compared with others. Length of stay showed a non-significant effect in favour of CCT (two trials, 217 participants, MD -16.35, 95% CI -37.69 to 4.99). Eight trials (815 participants) measured adverse events (falls during therapy): there was a non-significant effect of greater risk of falls in the CCT groups (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08, GRADE: very low). Time after stroke did not make a difference to the positive outcomes, nor did the quality or size of the trials. Heterogeneity was generally low; risk of bias was variable across the studies with poor reporting of study conduct in several of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate evidence that CCT is effective in improving mobility for people after stroke - they may be able to walk further, faster, with more independence and confidence in their balance. The effects may be greater later after the stroke, and are of clinical significance. Further high-quality research is required, investigating quality of life, participation and cost-benefits, that compares CCT with standard care and that also investigates the influence of factors such as stroke severity and age. The potential risk of increased falls during CCT needs to be monitored.

Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke

BACKGROUND

Repetitive task training (RTT) involves the active practice of task-specific motor activities and is a component of current therapy approaches in stroke rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: To determine if RTT improves upper limb function/reach and lower limb function/balance in adults after stroke. Secondary objectives: 1) To determine the effect of RTT on secondary outcome measures including activities of daily living, global motor function, quality of life/health status and adverse events. 2) To determine the factors that could influence primary and secondary outcome measures, including the effect of 'dose' of task practice; type of task (whole therapy, mixed or single task); timing of the intervention and type of intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (4 March 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 5: 1 October 2006 to 24 June 2016); MEDLINE (1 October 2006 to 8 March 2016); Embase (1 October 2006 to 8 March 2016); CINAHL (2006 to 23 June 2016); AMED (2006 to 21 June 2016) and SPORTSDiscus (2006 to 21 June 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised/quasi-randomised trials in adults after stroke, where the intervention was an active motor sequence performed repetitively within a single training session, aimed towards a clear functional goal.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We determined the quality of evidence within each study and outcome group using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We did not assess follow-up outcome data using GRADE. We contacted trial authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials with 36 intervention-control pairs and 1853 participants. The risk of bias present in many studies was unclear due to poor reporting; the evidence has therefore been rated 'moderate' or 'low' when using the GRADE system. There is low-quality evidence that RTT improves arm function (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.49; 11 studies, number of participants analysed = 749), hand function (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.51; eight studies, number of participants analysed = 619), and lower limb functional measures (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.48; five trials, number of participants analysed = 419). There is moderate-quality evidence that RTT improves walking distance (mean difference (MD) 34.80, 95% CI 18.19 to 51.41; nine studies, number of participants analysed = 610) and functional ambulation (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.66; eight studies, number of participants analysed = 525). We found significant differences between groups for both upper-limb (SMD 0.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; three studies, number of participants analysed = 153) and lower-limb (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.52; eight studies, number of participants analysed = 471) outcomes up to six months post treatment but not after six months. Effects were not modified by intervention type, dosage of task practice or time since stroke for upper or lower limb. There was insufficient evidence to be certain about the risk of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-quality evidence that RTT improves upper and lower limb function; improvements were sustained up to six months post treatment. Further research should focus on the type and amount of training, including ways of measuring the number of repetitions actually performed by participants. The definition of RTT will need revisiting prior to further updates of this review in order to ensure it remains clinically meaningful and distinguishable from other interventions.