Posts Tagged meta-analysis

[REVIEW] INFLUENCE OF TRANSCUTANEOUS ELECTRICAL NERVE STIMULATION ON SPASTICITY, BALANCE, AND WALKING SPEED IN STROKE PATIENTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS – Full Text PDF

Objective: To evaluate the influence of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with stroke through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation vs placebo transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on stroke were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcome was modified Ashworth scale (MAS). Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

Results: Seven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation supplementation significantly reduced MAS (standard mean difference (SMD) = –0.71; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = –1.11 to –0.30; p =0.0006), improved static balance with open eyes (SMD = –1.26; 95% CI = –1.83
to –0.69; p<0.0001) and closed eyes (SMD = –1.74; 95% CI = –2.36 to –1.12; p < 0.00001), and increased walking speed (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.84; p = 0.03), but did not improve results on the Timed Up and Go Test (SMD = –0.60; 95% CI=–1.22 to 0.03; p = 0.06).

Conclusion: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is associated with significantly reduced spasticity, increased static balance and walking speed, but has no influence on dynamic balance.

Download Full Text PDF

 

Advertisements

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Determining the potential benefits of yoga in chronic stroke care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Survivors of stroke have long-term physical and psychological consequences that impact their quality of life. Few interventions are available in the community to address these problems. Yoga, a type of mindfulness-based intervention, is shown to be effective in people with other chronic illnesses and may have the potential to address many of the problems reported by survivors of stroke.

Objectives: To date only narrative reviews have been published. We sought to perform, the first systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated yoga for its potential benefit for chronic survivors of stroke.

Methods: Ovid Medline, CINHAL plus, AMED, PubMed, PsychINFO, PeDro, Cochrane database, Sport Discuss, and Google Scholar were searched for papers published between January 1950 and August 2016. Reference lists of included papers, review articles and OpenGrey for Grey literature were also searched. We used a modified Cochrane tool to evaluate risk of bias. The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed using the GRADE approach, results were collated, and random effects meta-analyses performed where appropriate.

Results: The search yielded five eligible papers from four RCTs with small sample sizes (n = 17–47). Quality of RCTs was rated as low to moderate. Yoga is beneficial in reducing state anxiety symptoms and depression in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean differences for state anxiety 6.05, 95% CI:−0.02 to 12.12; p = 0.05 and standardized mean differences for depression: 0.50, 95% CI:−0.01 to 1.02; p = 0.05). Consistent but nonsignificant improvements were demonstrated for balance, trait anxiety, and overall quality of life.

Conclusions: Yoga may be effective for ameliorating some of the long-term consequences of stroke. Large well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Source: Determining the potential benefits of yoga in chronic stroke care: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation: Vol 24, No 4

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Effect of motor imagery on walking function and balance in patients after stroke: A quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trials

 

Highlights

  • Motor imagery (MI) is a beneficial intervention for stroke rehabilitation.
  • MI shows superior to routine methods of treatment or training in improving walking and motor function.
  • Effects of MI on walking and motor function are not affected by treatment duration.

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate effects of motor imagery (MI) on walking function and balance in patients after stroke.

Methods

Related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in 12 electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, WanFang, and VIP) from inception to November 30, 2016, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. References listed in included papers and other related systematic reviews on MI were also screened for further consideration.

Results

A total of 17 studies were included. When compared with “routine methods of treatment or training,” meta-analyses showed that MI was more effective in improving walking abilities (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.69, random effect model, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 1.00, P < 0.0001) and motor function in stroke patients (SMD = 0.84, random effect model, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.22, P < 0.0001), but no statistical difference was noted in balance (SMD = 0.78, random effect model, 95% CI = −0.07 to 1.62, P = 0.07). Statistically significant improvement in walking abilities was noted between short-term (0 to < six weeks) (SMD = 0.83, fixed effect model, 95% CI = 0.24 to 1.42, P = 0.006) and long-term (≥six weeks) durations (SMD = 0.45, fixed effect model, 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.64, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses results suggested that MI had a positive effect on balance with short-term duration (0 to < six weeks) (SMD = 4.67, fixed effect model, 95% CI = 2.89 to 6.46, P < 0.00001), but failed to improve balance (SMD = 0.82, random effect model, 95% CI = −0.27 to 1.90, P = 0.14) with long-term (≥six weeks) duration.

Conclusion

MI appears to be a beneficial intervention for stroke rehabilitation. Nonetheless, existing evidence regarding effectiveness of MI in stroke patients remains inconclusive because of significantly statistical heterogeneity and methodological flaws identified in the included studies. More large-scale and rigorously designed RCTs in future research with sufficient follow-up periods are needed to provide more reliable evidence on the effect of MI on stroke patients.

Source: Effect of motor imagery on walking function and balance in patients after stroke: A quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trials – Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Play seriously: Effectiveness of serious games and their features in motor rehabilitation. A meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Evidence for the effectiveness of serious games (SGs) and their various features is inconsistent in the motor rehabilitation field, which makes evidence based development of SGs a rare practice.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the effectiveness of SGs in motor rehabilitation for upper limb and movement/balance and to test the potential moderating role of SGs features like feedback, activities, characters and background.

METHODS:

We ran a meta-analysis including 61 studies reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials (CTs) or case series designs in which at least one intervention for motor rehabilitation included the use of SGs as standalone or in combination.

RESULTS:

There was an overall moderate effect of SGs on motor indices, d = 0.59, [95% CI, 0.48, 0.71], p <  0.001. Regarding the game features, only two out of 17 moderators were statistically different in terms of effect sizes: type of activity (combination of group with individual activities had the highest effects), and realism of the scenario (fantasy scenarios had the highest effects).

CONCLUSIONS:

While we showed that SGs are more effective in improving motor upper limb and movement/balance functions compared to conventional rehabilitation, there were no consistent differences between various game features in their contribution to effects. Further research should systematically investigate SGs features that might have added value in improving effectiveness.

Source: Play seriously: Effectiveness of serious games and their features in motor rehabilitation. A meta-analysis. – PubMed – NCBI

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Electro-acupuncture for post-stroke spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the effects and safety of electro-acupuncture (EA) for stroke patients with spasticity.

Data Sources

Five English (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and AMED) and four Chinese databases (CBM, CNKI, CQVIP and Wanfang) were searched from their inception to September 2016.

Data Selection

Randomized controlled trials were included if they measured spasticity with Modified Ashworth Scale in stroke patients and investigated the add-on effects of electro-acupuncture to routine pharmacotherapy and rehabilitation therapies.

Data Extraction

Information on patients, study design, treatment details and outcomes assessing spasticity severity, motor function and activity of daily living were extracted.

Data Synthesis

In total, 22 trials met the search criteria and were included involving 1,425 participants. The estimated add-on effects of EA to reduce spasticity in upper limb measured by MAS (SMD: -0.57[-0.84, -0.29]) and improve overall motor function measured by FMA (MD: 10.60[8.67, 12.53]) were significant. It was also found that for spasticity in lower limb, lower-limb motor function and activity of daily living, significant add-on effects of EA were also shown (SMD: -0.88[-1.42, -0.35], MD:4.42[0.06, 8.78] and MD: 6.85[3.64, 10.05] respectively), though with high heterogeneity. For upper-limb motor function, no significant add-on effects of EA was received.

Conclusions

Electro-acupuncture combined with conventional routine care has the potential of reducing spasticity in upper and lower limb and improving overall and lower extremity motor function and activity of daily living for spasticity patients within 180 days post stroke. Further studies of high methodological and reporting quality are needed to confirm the effects and safety of electro-acupuncture, and to explore the adequate and optimal protocol of EA for post-stroke spasticity incorporating a group of comprehensive outcome measures in different populations.

Source: Electro-acupuncture for post-stroke spasticity: a systematic review and meta-analysis – Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Stroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

Results

Twenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [−0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD −0.10; CI [−0.59, 0.38], n = 35).

Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding.

Conclusions

FES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke.

Background

Stroke is defined as a clinical syndrome characterised by rapidly developing focal or global disturbance in cerebral function lasting more than 24 h or leading to death due to a presumed vascular cause [1]. Globally, approximately 16 million people have a stroke each year [2] and in the UK, first-ever stroke affects about 230 people per 100,000 population each year [3]. Stroke represents a cost to the UK economy of approximately £9 billion annually, of which £1.33 billion results from productivity losses [4].

Stroke often leads to significant impairment of upper limb function and is associated with decreased quality of life in all domains except for mobility [5]. Few patients attain complete functional recovery [6]; this deficit impairs performance of activities of daily living (ADL), including self-care and social activities [7, 8]. ADL reflect the level of functional impairment in daily life and are therefore the most clinically relevant outcome measures in assessing recovery after stroke [9].

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) was well established as an intervention for motor rehabilitation. FES is the electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups are stimulated to contract and create/augment a moment about a joint [2]. Transcutaneous electrodes offer the most immediate and clinically viable treatment option as they are non-invasive and may permit home-based treatment.

There are various terms used in the literature to describe different forms of electrical stimulation, often inconsistently. Some authors define FES as electrical stimulation applied to a subject which causes muscle contraction. This passive modality is also referred to as neuromuscular electrical stimulation [10]. Others define FES as electrical stimulation applied during a voluntary movement [4]. This definition acknowledges the volitional component of physical rehabilitation and was used in this systematic review. The distinction is important because neuroimaging studies have identified different cortical mechanisms according to stimulation type [11, 12, 13]. Indeed, perfusion to the ipsilesional sensory-motor cortex and cortical excitability were increased with FES when compared to passive modalities of electrical stimulation [12, 13, 14]. These findings could indicate greater potential for volitional FES to induce neuroplasticity. This is believed to play an important role in neurorehabilitation [15] and is a key objective of post-stroke functional recovery [16].

FES has been widely researched for post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation; several systematic reviews [17, 18, 19] and national guidelines [20, 21] exist. Improvement in upper limb function is central to post-stroke rehabilitation as it positively affects ADL and quality of life [22]. Yet, there is still a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of FES in post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation [23] despite systematic reviews having been undertaken [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. In part, this is due to methodological limitations [27, 28] or the outdated nature of some existing reviews [24, 25, 26]. The latter was highlighted by a recent Cochrane overview of reviews calling for an up-to-date review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) related to electrical stimulation [29]. A more recent systematic review found a significant improvement in motor outcomes with upper limb FES [27]. However, this was based on a single meta-analysis that combined ADLs with upper limb-specific measures of functional motor ability, including studies where results were at risk of performance bias (intervention groups receiving greater duration of treatment than control groups) [27]. Another found no improvement in motor function when FES was applied within 6 months of stroke [28]. However, this predominantly included studies that applied electrical stimulation in the absence of volitional muscle contraction, confounding interpretation of the results. This inconsistency is reflected in the 2016 guidelines set by the Royal College of Physicians which recommends FES only in the context of clinical trials as an adjunct to conventional therapy [21].

This systematic review aims to elucidate the effectiveness of upper limb FES compared to standard therapy in improving ADL, in addition to motor outcomes, post-stroke. It represents an important addition to the literature that focuses on the use of volitional FES and, for the first time, distinguishes its effect on clinically relevant patient outcomes from surrogate markers of patient rehabilitation. This includes analyses based on patient sub-groups defined by the time after stroke at which FES was initiated.

Fig. 1 Flow diagram for included studies

Continue —> Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Systematic Review] Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis – Full Text

Abstract

Background

Stroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes.

Methods

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

Results

Twenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [−0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD −0.10; CI [−0.59, 0.38], n = 35).

Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding.

Conclusions

FES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke.

Background

Stroke is defined as a clinical syndrome characterised by rapidly developing focal or global disturbance in cerebral function lasting more than 24 h or leading to death due to a presumed vascular cause [1]. Globally, approximately 16 million people have a stroke each year [2] and in the UK, first-ever stroke affects about 230 people per 100,000 population each year [3]. Stroke represents a cost to the UK economy of approximately £9 billion annually, of which £1.33 billion results from productivity losses [4].

Stroke often leads to significant impairment of upper limb function and is associated with decreased quality of life in all domains except for mobility [5]. Few patients attain complete functional recovery [6]; this deficit impairs performance of activities of daily living (ADL), including self-care and social activities [7, 8]. ADL reflect the level of functional impairment in daily life and are therefore the most clinically relevant outcome measures in assessing recovery after stroke [9].

Functional electrical stimulation (FES) was well established as an intervention for motor rehabilitation. FES is the electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups are stimulated to contract and create/augment a moment about a joint [2]. Transcutaneous electrodes offer the most immediate and clinically viable treatment option as they are non-invasive and may permit home-based treatment.

There are various terms used in the literature to describe different forms of electrical stimulation, often inconsistently. Some authors define FES as electrical stimulation applied to a subject which causes muscle contraction. This passive modality is also referred to as neuromuscular electrical stimulation [10]. Others define FES as electrical stimulation applied during a voluntary movement [4]. This definition acknowledges the volitional component of physical rehabilitation and was used in this systematic review. The distinction is important because neuroimaging studies have identified different cortical mechanisms according to stimulation type [11, 12, 13]. Indeed, perfusion to the ipsilesional sensory-motor cortex and cortical excitability were increased with FES when compared to passive modalities of electrical stimulation [12, 13, 14]. These findings could indicate greater potential for volitional FES to induce neuroplasticity. This is believed to play an important role in neurorehabilitation [15] and is a key objective of post-stroke functional recovery [16].

FES has been widely researched for post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation; several systematic reviews [17, 18, 19] and national guidelines [20, 21] exist. Improvement in upper limb function is central to post-stroke rehabilitation as it positively affects ADL and quality of life [22]. Yet, there is still a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of FES in post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation [23] despite systematic reviews having been undertaken [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. In part, this is due to methodological limitations [27, 28] or the outdated nature of some existing reviews [24, 25, 26]. The latter was highlighted by a recent Cochrane overview of reviews calling for an up-to-date review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) related to electrical stimulation [29]. A more recent systematic review found a significant improvement in motor outcomes with upper limb FES [27]. However, this was based on a single meta-analysis that combined ADLs with upper limb-specific measures of functional motor ability, including studies where results were at risk of performance bias (intervention groups receiving greater duration of treatment than control groups) [27]. Another found no improvement in motor function when FES was applied within 6 months of stroke [28]. However, this predominantly included studies that applied electrical stimulation in the absence of volitional muscle contraction, confounding interpretation of the results. This inconsistency is reflected in the 2016 guidelines set by the Royal College of Physicians which recommends FES only in the context of clinical trials as an adjunct to conventional therapy [21].

This systematic review aims to elucidate the effectiveness of upper limb FES compared to standard therapy in improving ADL, in addition to motor outcomes, post-stroke. It represents an important addition to the literature that focuses on the use of volitional FES and, for the first time, distinguishes its effect on clinically relevant patient outcomes from surrogate markers of patient rehabilitation. This includes analyses based on patient sub-groups defined by the time after stroke at which FES was initiated.

Continue —> Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text

Fig. 1 Flow diagram for included studies

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Short- and Long-term Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function after Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis – Full Text

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term effects as well as other parameters of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on upper limb motor functional recovery after stroke.

The databases of PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled studies reporting effects of rTMS on upper limb motor recovery published before October 30, 2016.

The short- and long-term mean effect sizes as well as the effect size of rTMS frequency of pulse, post-stroke onset, and theta burst stimulation patterns were summarized by calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the 95% confidence interval using fixed/random effect models as appropriate.

Thirty-four studies with 904 participants were included in this systematic review. Pooled estimates show that rTMS significantly improved short-term (SMD, 0.43; P < 0.001) and long-term (SMD, 0.49; P < 0.001) manual dexterity. More pronounced effects were found for rTMS administered in the acute phase of stroke (SMD, 0.69), subcortical stroke (SMD, 0.66), 5-session rTMS treatment (SMD, 0.67) and intermittent theta burst stimulation (SMD, 0.60). Only three studies reported mild adverse events such as headache and increased anxiety .

Five-session rTMS treatment could best improve stroke-induced upper limb dyskinesia acutely and in a long-lasting manner. Intermittent theta burst stimulation is more beneficial than continuous theta burst stimulation. rTMS applied in the acute phase of stroke is more effective than rTMS applied in the chronic phase. Subcortical lesion benefit more from rTMS than other lesion site.

Continue —> Short- and Long-term Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Upper Limb Motor Function after Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis – Feb 17, 2017

figure

Figure 1. The flow diagram of the selection process.

 

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke: a systematic review – Full Text

Abstract

Question: Is biofeedback during the practice of lower limb activities after stroke more effective than usual therapy in improving those activities, and are any benefits maintained beyond the intervention?

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials with a PEDro score > 4.

Participants: People who have had a stroke.

Intervention: Biofeedback (any type delivered by any signal or sense) delivered concurrently during practice of sitting, standing up, standing or walking compared with the same amount of practice without biofeedback.

Outcome measures: Measures of activity congruent with the activity trained.

Results: Eighteen trials including 429 participants met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included trials was moderately high, with a mean PEDro score of 6.2 out of 10. The pooled effect size was calculated as a standardised mean difference (SMD) because different outcome measures were used. Biofeedback improved performance of activities more than usual therapy (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70).

Conclusion: Biofeedback is more effective than usual therapy in improving performance of activities. Further research is required to determine the long-term effect on learning. Given that many biofeedback machines are relatively inexpensive, biofeedback could be utilised widely in clinical practice.

[Stanton R, Ada L, Dean CM, Preston E (2016) Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 11–16]

Introduction

This is an update of a systematic review1 that examined the effect of biofeedback in training lower limb activities after stroke. Biofeedback is equipment that transforms biological signals into an output that can be understood by the learner, providing information to the learner that is not consciously available. That is, biofeedback takes intrinsic physiological signals and makes them extrinsic, giving the person immediate and accurate feedback of information about these body functions. Biofeedback can be delivered through various senses, such as visual, auditory and tactile systems, and can provide information about the kinematics, kinetics and/or electromyography of activities. Biofeedback is available from medical equipment (eg, electromyography, force platforms and positional devices traditionally used in clinical practice); or from non-medical equipment that is increasingly available and used in stroke rehabilitation (eg, recreational games such as the Nintendo® Wii™). Biofeedback can be used in addition to verbal content; however, it also has the advantage that it can be set up for the patient to use when left to practise alone. However, biofeedback is not commonly used in stroke rehabilitation.2

The previous version of this review,2 which was published in 2011, examined biofeedback broadly in training lower limb activities after stroke, including trials where any form of biofeedback was provided during practice of the whole activity (rather than part of the activity), with outcomes measured during the same activity. Twenty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review; however, meta-analyses demonstrated significant heterogeneity that was best explained by the quality of the included trials. When analyses were limited to higher quality trials (PEDro score > 4), biofeedback had a moderate effect in the short term (10 trials, 241 participants, SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75) compared with usual therapy, which was maintained beyond intervention (five trials, 138 participants, SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.75), suggesting that learning had occurred. For a direct comparison of the effect of biofeedback interventions and usual therapy (which includes therapist communication), a post hoc meta-analysis was conducted of those trials where the amount of practice was equal in each group. That is, trials where the control group practised the same activity for the same amount of time as the experimental group, with the only difference being the substitution of biofeedback for therapist communication (presumably including feedback) in the experimental group. This meta-analysis demonstrated a moderate effect of a similar magnitude to the overall analysis (eight trials, 170 participants, SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.83), suggesting that biofeedback is superior to therapist communication.

Since that review1 was published in 2011, a number of additional trials have been published that investigated the effect of biofeedback, warranting an update of the review. In particular, the potential of using recreational games in stroke rehabilitation has gained attention. The inclusion criteria for this updated review incorporated findings from the previous review. Specifically, this meant that the updated review would include any randomised trial investigating biofeedback from any signal (position, force, EMG) via any sense (visual, auditory, tactile), delivered concurrently during whole activity practice, compared with usual therapy that was practice of the same activity for the same amount of time in the control group with no biofeedback (but presumably with therapist communication), with outcome measures at the activity level and congruent with the activity trained. This ensures a true comparison of the effect of biofeedback compared with usual therapist communication. For the biofeedback intervention, inclusion in this update was based on whether the biofeedback delivered was concurrent rather than terminal feedback. This meant that commercially available recreational games would be included if the majority of the games played within the study delivered concurrent biofeedback, rather than inclusion based on the equipment itself. In order to make recommendations based on the highest level of evidence, this review included only randomised trials with a PEDro score > 4.

Therefore, the research questions for this systematic review were:

  • 1. In adults following stroke, is biofeedback during the practice of lower limb activities more effective than usual therapy in improving those activities in the short term?
  • 2. Are any benefits maintained beyond the intervention?

Continue —> Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke: a systematic review – Journal of Physiotherapy

 

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Systematic Review] Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke – Full Text

Abstract

Question: Is biofeedback during the practice of lower limb activities after stroke more effective than usual therapy in improving those activities, and are any benefits maintained beyond the intervention? Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials with a PEDro score > 4. Participants: People who have had a stroke. Intervention: Biofeedback (any type delivered by any signal or sense) delivered concurrently during practice of sitting, standing up, standing or walking compared with the same amount of practice without biofeedback. Outcome measures: Measures of activity congruent with the activity trained. Results: Eighteen trials including 429 participants met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included trials was moderately high, with a mean PEDro score of 6.2 out of 10. The pooled effect size was calculated as a standardised mean difference (SMD) because different outcome measures were used. Biofeedback improved performance of activities more than usual therapy (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70). Conclusion: Biofeedback is more effective than usual therapy in improving performance of activities. Further research is required to determine the long-term effect on learning. Given that many biofeedback machines are relatively inexpensive, biofeedback could be utilised widely in clinical practice. [Stanton R, Ada L, Dean CM, Preston E (2016) Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke: a systematic review.Journal of PhysiotherapyXX: XX-XX]

Introduction

This is an update of a systematic review1 that examined the effect of biofeedback in training lower limb activities after stroke. Biofeedback is equipment that transforms biological signals into an output that can be understood by the learner, providing information to the learner that is not consciously available. That is, biofeedback takes intrinsic physiological signals and makes them extrinsic, giving the person immediate and accurate feedback of information about these body functions. Biofeedback can be delivered through various senses, such as visual, auditory and tactile systems, and can provide information about the kinematics, kinetics and/or electromyography of activities. Biofeedback is available from medical equipment (eg, electromyography, force platforms and positional devices traditionally used in clinical practice); or from non-medical equipment that is increasingly available and used in stroke rehabilitation (eg, recreational games such as the Nintendo® Wii™). Biofeedback can be used in addition to verbal content; however, it also has the advantage that it can be set up for the patient to use when left to practise alone. However, biofeedback is not commonly used in stroke rehabilitation.2

Continue —> Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke: a systematic review

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: