Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Monday, December 19, 2022

What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The evidence is that therapy after stroke is a complete fucking failure; only 10% get to full recovery from it. But you're using the tyranny of low expectations to declare success from failure.  You ask one question of your patients: Are you 100% recovered? Y/N? That will give you the correct answer to your recovery question.

What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2014, PLoS ONE

 
What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? ASystematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Janne Marieke Veerbeek 1, 
Erwin van Wegen 1, 
Roland van Peppen 2, 
Philip Jan van der Wees 3,
Erik Hendriks 4, 
Marc Rietberg 1, 
Gert Kwakkel 1 5 *
1 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
 2 Department of Physiotherapy, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
 3 Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud UniversityNijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands,
 4 Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands,
 5 Department of Neurorehabilitation, Reade Center for Rehabilitation and Rheumatology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background:
 
Physical therapy (PT) is one of the key disciplines in interdisciplinary stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the evidence for stroke rehabilitation interventions in the domain of PT.
 
Methods and Findings:
 
 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding PT in stroke rehabilitation were retrieved through a systematic search. Outcomes were classified according to the ICF. RCTs with a low risk of bias were quantitatively analyzed.Differences between phases post stroke were explored in subgroup analyses. A best evidence synthesis was performed for neurological treatment approaches. The search yielded 467 RCTs (N=25373; median PEDro score 6 [IQR 5–7]), identifying 53interventions. No adverse events were reported. Strong evidence was found for significant positive effects(NOT GOOD ENOUGH! It's not 100% recovery is it? Then you failed your survivor!) of 13interventions related to gait, 11 interventions related to arm-hand activities, 1 intervention for ADL, and 3 interventions for physical fitness. Summary Effect Sizes (SESs) ranged from 0.17 (95%CI 0.03–0.70; I2=0%) for therapeutic positioning of the paretic arm to 2.47 (95%CI 0.84–4.11; I2=77%) for training of sitting balance. There is strong evidence that a higher dose of practice is better, with SESs ranging from 0.21 (95%CI 0.02–0.39; I2=6%) for motor function of the paretic arm to 0.61(95%CI 0.41–0.82; I2=41%) for muscle strength of the paretic leg. Subgroup analyses yielded significant differences with respect to timing post stroke for 10 interventions. Neurological treatment approaches to training of body functions and activities showed equal or unfavorable effects when compared to other training interventions. Main limitations of the present review are not using individual patient data for meta-analyses and absence of correction for multiple testing.
 
Conclusions:
 
 There is strong evidence for PT interventions favoring intensive high repetitive task-oriented and task-specific training in all phases post stroke. Effects are mostly restricted to the actually trained functions and activities. Suggestions for prioritizing PT stroke research are given.(But nothing here will get you 100% recovered! Why the hell didn't you discuss that?)
Citation:
 Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees PJ, Hendriks E, et al. (2014) What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? A SystematicReview and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 9(2): e87987. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087987
Editor:
 Terence J. Quinn, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
Received
 October 29, 2013;
 Accepted
 December 30, 2013;
 Published
 February 4, 2014
Copyright:
 
 2014 Veerbeek et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permitsunrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding:
 This research project was supported by the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF grant no. 8091.1; http://www.fysionet.nl/). The funders hadno role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

No comments:

Post a Comment