Another waste of time. This should have already been out there in that stroke protocol database with efficacy ratings. When will our stroke leaders set up such a database and stop the waste of time on all these reviews and analysis writeups? Time better spent actually solving all these problems in stroke.
Yeah, solving these is going to be hard work, but leaders tackle the hard jobs, they don't
RUN AWAY!
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The
aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of
constraint-induced movement therapy in acute and sub-acute stroke.
DATA SOURCES:
The
key words were stroke, cerebrovascular accident, constraint-induced
therapy, forced use, and randomized controlled trial. The databases,
including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, Weipu
Information Resources System, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database,
PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched
for studies on randomized controlled trials for treating acute or
sub-acute stroke published before March 2016.
DATA SELECTION:
We
retrieved relevant randomized controlled trials that compared
constraint-induced movement therapy in treatment of acute or sub-acute
stroke with traditional rehabilitation therapy (traditional occupational
therapy). Patients were older than 18 years, had disease courses less
than 6 months, and were evaluated with at least one upper extremity
function scale. Study quality was evaluated, and data that met the
criteria were extracted. Stata 11.0 software was used for the
meta-analysis.
OUTCOME MEASURES:
Fugl-Meyer
motor assessment of the arm, the action research-arm test, a motor
activity log for amount of use and quality of movement, the Wolf motor
function test, and a modified Barthel index.
RESULTS:
A
total of 16 prospective randomized controlled trials (379 patients in
the constraint-induced movement-therapy group and 359 in the control
group) met inclusion criteria. Analysis showed significant mean
differences in favor of constraint-induced movement therapy for the
Fugl-Meyer motor assessment of the arm (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 10.822; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 7.419-14.226), the action research-arm test (WMD = 10.718; 95% CI: 5.704-15.733), the motor activity log for amount of use and quality of movement (WMD = 0.812; 95% CI: 0.331-1.293) and the modified Barthel index (WMD = 10.706; 95% CI: 4.417-16.966).
CONCLUSION:
Constraint-induced
movement therapy may be more beneficial than traditional rehabilitation
therapy for improving upper limb function after acute or sub-acute
stroke.
KEYWORDS:
constraint-induced
movement therapy; intensity; meta-analysis; nerve regeneration; neural
regeneration; rehabilitation; stroke; upper extremity function
No comments:
Post a Comment