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.

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

C Smyth a b c,

P Broderick a b, 

P Lynch a b, 

H Clark d, 

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

Author links open overlay panel

, , , ,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2023.02.001Get 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.