You didn't search enough if you didn't find that therapy post stroke may help but with only
10% almost full recovery has to be considered a total failure. Which should have led you to preventing neuronal death in the first place by stopping the
neuronal cascade of death. There must not be anyone with a modicum of brains working in the stroke field.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3/abstract
- Alex Pollock1,*,
- Gillian Baer2,
- Pauline Campbell1,
- Pei Ling Choo3,
- Anne Forster4,
- Jacqui Morris5,
- Valerie M Pomeroy6,
- Peter Langhorne7
Editorial Group:
Cochrane Stroke Group
Published Online: 22 APR 2014
Assessed as up-to-date: 6 FEB 2014
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3
Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Abstract
Background
Various
approaches to physical rehabilitation may be used after stroke, and
considerable controversy and debate surround the effectiveness of
relative approaches. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a
single approach; others use a mixture of components from several
different approaches.
Objectives
To
determine whether physical rehabilitation approaches are effective in
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.
For the previous versions of this review, the
objective was to explore the effect of 'physiotherapy treatment
approaches' based on historical classifications of orthopaedic,
neurophysiological or motor learning principles, or on a mixture of
these treatment principles. For this update of the review, the objective
was to explore the effects of approaches that incorporate individual
treatment components, categorised as functional task training,
musculoskeletal intervention (active), musculoskeletal intervention
(passive), neurophysiological intervention, cardiopulmonary
intervention, assistive device or modality.
In addition, we
sought to explore the impact of time after stroke, geographical location
of the study, dose of the intervention, provider of the intervention
and treatment components included within an intervention.
Search methods
We
searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched
December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
(CENTRAL) (
The Cochrane Library Issue 12, 2012),
MEDLINE (1966 to December 2012), EMBASE (1980 to December 2012), AMED
(1985 to December 2012) and CINAHL (1982 to December 2012). We searched
reference lists and contacted experts and researchers who have an
interest in stroke rehabilitation.
Selection 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. Outcomes included measures of
independence in activities of daily living (ADL), motor function,
balance, gait velocity and length of stay. We included trials comparing
physical rehabilitation approaches versus no treatment, usual care or
attention control and those comparing different physical rehabilitation
approaches.
Data collection and analysis
Two
review authors independently categorised identified trials according to
the selection criteria, documented their methodological quality and
extracted the data.
Main results
We
included a total of 96 studies (10,401 participants) in this review.
More than half of the studies (50/96) were carried out in China.
Generally the studies were heterogeneous, and many were poorly reported.
Physical
rehabilitation was found to have a beneficial effect, as compared with
no treatment, on functional recovery after stroke (27 studies, 3423
participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.78, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.97, for Independence in ADL scales), and this
effect was noted to persist beyond the length of the intervention period
(nine studies, 540 participants; SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.04).
Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference based on dose of
intervention (P value < 0.0001, for independence in ADL), indicating
that a dose of 30 to 60 minutes per day delivered five to seven days per
week is effective. This evidence principally arises from studies
carried out in China. Subgroup analyses also suggest significant benefit
associated with a shorter time since stroke (P value 0.003, for
independence in ADL).
We found physical rehabilitation to be more
effective than usual care or attention control in improving motor
function (12 studies, 887 participants; SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55),
balance (five studies, 246 participants; SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56)
and gait velocity (14 studies, 1126 participants; SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.32
to 0.60). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant difference based
on dose of intervention (P value 0.02 for motor function), indicating
that a dose of 30 to 60 minutes delivered five to seven days a week
provides significant benefit. Subgroup analyses also suggest significant
benefit associated with a shorter time since stroke (P value 0.05, for
independence in ADL).
No one physical rehabilitation approach was
more (or less) effective than any other approach in improving
independence in ADL (eight studies, 491 participants; test for subgroup
differences: P value 0.71) or motor function (nine studies, 546
participants; test for subgroup differences: P value 0.41). These
findings are supported by subgroup analyses carried out for comparisons
of intervention versus no treatment or usual care, which identified no
significant effects of different treatment components or categories of
interventions.
Authors' conclusions
Physical
rehabilitation, comprising a selection of components from different
approaches,
is effective for recovery of function and mobility after
stroke.
(Bullshit!!! 10% full recovery is not effective) Evidence related to dose of physical therapy is limited by
substantial heterogeneity and does not support robust conclusions. No
one approach to physical rehabilitation is any more (or less) effective
in promoting recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Therefore,
evidence indicates that physical rehabilitation should not be limited to
compartmentalised, named approaches, but rather should comprise clearly
defined, well-described, evidenced-based physical treatments,
regardless of historical or philosophical origin.