Deans' stroke musings: To assess the effects of cross-education on strength and motor function in post stroke rehabilitation: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

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, February 27, 2023

To assess the effects of cross-education on strength and motor function in post stroke rehabilitation: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

What fucking stupidity; 'ASSESSMENTS' not 'This is exactly how you get survivors recovered'. You're all fired.

K Monaghan a b

^a: Clinical Health and Nutrition Centre (CHANCE), School of Science, Atlantic Technological University (ATU) Sligo, Ireland

^b: Neuroplasticity Research Group, Clinical Health and Nutrition Centre (CHANCE), School of Science, Atlantic Technological University (ATU) Sligo, Ireland

^c: MS North West Therapy Centre, Sligo, Ireland

^d: Sligo University Hospital, Sligo, Ireland

, , , ,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2023.02.001 Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license

open access

Highlights

Cross education is shown to be statistically and clinically beneficial in improving strength gains in the more affected limb in people following stroke.

Cross education is shown to be statistically and clinically beneficial in improving motor function in the more affected upper limb in people following stroke.

Further quality studies are recommended.

Abstract

Background

Cross-education refers to the increase in motor output of the untrained limb following unilateral training of the opposite limb. Cross education has been shown to be beneficial in clinical settings.

Objectives

This systematic literature and meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of cross-education on strength and motor function in post stroke rehabilitation.

Data sources

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed, PEDro, Web of Science, ClinicalTrails.gov and Cochrane Central registers were searched up to 1^st October 2022.

Study Selection

Controlled trials using unilateral training of the less affected limb in individuals diagnosed with stroke and English language.

Data Synthesis

Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tools. Quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4.1.

Results

Five studies capturing 131 participants were included in the review and three studies capturing 95 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Cross education was shown to have a statistically and clinically significant effect on upper limb strength (p < 0.003; SMD 0.58; 95% CI 0.20-0.97; n=117) and upper limb function (p = 0.04; SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.02-0.77; n=119).

Limitations

Small number of studies all studies identified as having some risk of bias. Quality of evidence graded ‘low’ due to limitations and imprecision.

Conclusion

Cross education may be beneficial in improving strength and motor function in the more affected upper limb post stroke. Further studies are needed as the research into the benefits of cross education in stroke rehabilitation is still limited.