Posts Tagged systematic review

[Abstract] Effectiveness of home-based virtual reality on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes: a systematic review

Background: A 2015 systematic review evaluated the efficacy of utilizing virtual reality in vestibular rehabilitation programs. However, the biggest limitation with most of the included virtual reality systems was the associated cost of the equipment. In addition, home-based exercises are the preferred method of vestibular rehabilitation treatments.

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of home-based virtual reality systems on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes.

Methods: The following databases were examined: CINAHL Complete, ProQuest Medical Database, and PubMed. The following search terms were utilized: ‘video OR computer’ AND ‘vestibular’ AND ‘home’. The evidence level for all of the included articles was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and the methodological rigor for all of the included articles was evaluated using a 10-item tool created by Medlicott and Harris.

Results: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven articles were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. This systematic review found that home-based virtual reality interventions were able to effectively achieve the primary objectives of vestibular rehabilitation and that the use of these interventions was equally as effective as the use of a traditional vestibular rehabilitation program. In addition, it may be most beneficial to combine virtual reality with traditional vestibular rehabilitation.

Conclusions: Clinicians should consider using a combination of virtual reality and traditional vestibular rehabilitation when treating individuals who have been diagnosed with a vestibular dysfunction.

via Effectiveness of home-based virtual reality on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes: a systematic review: Physical Therapy Reviews: Vol 24, No 6

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] The effects of ankle-foot orthoses on walking speed in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ankle-foot orthoses on speed walking in patients with stroke.

Data sources:

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, PEDro, RehabData, RECAL, and ProQuest were searched from inception until 30 September 2019.

Review methods:

This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline statement. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Begg’s test and Egger’s regression method were used to assess the publication bias. Trim and fill analysis was also used to adjust any potential publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of individual studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

Results:

Overall, 14 studies were included with a total of 1186 participants. A small-to-moderate and non-significant improvement in favor of the ankle-foot orthosis versus without ankle-foot orthosis (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.41, 95% confidence interval = −0.15 to 0.96), similar effects of ankle-foot orthosis and functional electrical stimulation (SMD = 0.00, 95% confidence interval = −0.16 to 0.16), and a small and non-significant improvement in favor of ankle-foot orthosis versus another type of ankle-foot orthosis (SMD = 0.22, 95% confidence interval = −0.05 to 0.49) in walking speed were found. However, the quality of evidence for all comparisons was low or very low.

Conclusion:

Despite reported positive effects in some studies, there is no firm evidence of any benefit of ankle-foot orthoses on walking speed.

References

1.Kelly-Hayes, M, Beiser, A, Kase, CS, et al. The influence of gender and age on disability following ischemic stroke: the Framingham study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2003; 12(3): 119–126.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
2.Patterson, SL, Forrester, LW, Rodgers, MM, et al. Determinants of walking function after stroke: differences by deficit severity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88(1): 115–119.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
3.Hyndman, D, Ashburn, A, Stack, E. Fall events among people with stroke living in the community: circumstances of falls and characteristics of fallers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83(2): 165–170.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
4.Graham, J . Foot drop: explaining the causes, characteristics and treatment. Br J Neurosci Nurs 2010; 6: 168–172.
Google Scholar | Crossref
5.Hebert, D, Lindsay, MP, McIntyre, A, et al. Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: stroke rehabilitation practice guidelines, update 2015. Int J Stroke 2016; 11(4): 459–484.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
6.Winstein, CJ, Stein, J, Arena, R, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2016; 47: e98–e169.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
7.Dworzynski, K, Ritchie, G, Fenu, E, et al. Rehabilitation after stroke: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2013; 346: f3615.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
8.Daryabor, A, Arazpour, M, Aminian, G. Effect of different designs of ankle-foot orthoses on gait in patients with stroke: a systematic review. Gait Posture 2018; 62: 268–279.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
9.Everaert, DG, Thompson, AK, Chong, SL, et al. Does functional electrical stimulation for foot drop strengthen corticospinal connections. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010; 24(2): 168–177.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
10.Tyson, SF, Kent, RM. Effects of an ankle-foot orthosis on balance and walking after stroke: a systematic review and pooled meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94(7): 1377–1385.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
11.Prenton, S, Hollands, KL, Kenney, LPJ, et al. Functional electrical stimulation and ankle foot orthoses provide equivalent therapeutic effects on foot drop: a meta-analysis providing direction for future research. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50(2): 129–139.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
12.Prenton, S, Hollands, KL, Kenney, LP. Functional electrical stimulation versus ankle foot orthoses for foot-drop: a meta-analysis of orthotic effects. J Rehabil Med 2016; 48(8): 646–656.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
13.Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264–269.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
14.Shea, BJ, Reeves, BC, Wells, G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
15.Tomioka, K, Matsumoto, S, Ikeda, K, et al. Short-term effects of physiotherapy combining repetitive facilitation exercises and orthotic treatment in chronic post-stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci 2017; 29(2): 212–215.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
16.Higgins, JP, Altman, DG. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins, JPT, Green, S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Cochrane Book Series). West Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2008, pp.187–241.
Google Scholar | Crossref
17.Verhagen, AP, de Vet, HC, de Bie, RA, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(12): 1235–1241.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
18.Altman, D . Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
Google Scholar
19.Wan, X, Wang, W, Liu, J, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
20.DerSimonian, R, Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–188.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
21.Cohen, J . A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112: 155–159.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
22.Hatala, R, Keitz, S, Wyer, P, et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results. CMAJ 2005; 172(5): 661–665.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
23.Begg, CB, Mazumdar, M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088–1101.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
24.Egger, M, Smith, GD, Schneider, M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629–634.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
25.Duval, S, Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56(2): 455–463.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
26.Schunemann, H . GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation (version 3.2.), 2008, http://www.cc-ims.net/gradepro
Google Scholar
27.Bethoux, F, Rogers, HL, Nolan, KJ, et al. The effects of peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation versus ankle-foot orthosis in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014; 28(7): 688–697.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
28.De Seze, MP, Bonhomme, C, Daviet, JC, et al. Effect of early compensation of distal motor deficiency by the Chignon ankle-foot orthosis on gait in hemiplegic patients: a randomized pilot study. Clin Rehabil 2011; 25(11): 989–998.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
29.Erel, S, Uygur, F, Engin Simsek, I, et al. The effects of dynamic ankle-foot orthoses in chronic stroke patients at three-month follow-up: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2011; 25(6): 515–523.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
30.Everaert, DG, Stein, RB, Abrams, GM, et al. Effect of a foot-drop stimulator and ankle-foot orthosis on walking performance after stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013; 27(7): 579–591.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
31.Farmani, F, Mohseni Bandpei, MA, Bahramizadeh, M, et al. The effect of different shoes on functional mobility and energy expenditure in post-stroke hemiplegic patients using ankle-foot orthosis. Prosthet Orthot Int 2016; 40(5): 591–597.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
32.Kluding, PM, Dunning, K, O’Dell, MW, et al. Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30-week outcomes. Stroke 2013; 44(6): 1660–1669.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
33.Kottink, AI, Tenniglo, MJ, de Vries, WH, et al. Effects of an implantable two-channel peroneal nerve stimulator versus conventional walking device on spatiotemporal parameters and kinematics of hemiparetic gait. J Rehabil Med 2012; 44(1): 51–57.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
34.Morone, G, Fusco, A, Di Capua, P, et al. Walking training with foot drop stimulator controlled by a tilt sensor to improve walking outcomes: a randomized controlled pilot study in patients with stroke in subacute phase. Stroke Res Treat 2012; 2012: 523564.
Google Scholar | Medline
35.Nikamp, CD, Buurke, JH, van der Palen, J, et al. Early or delayed provision of an ankle-foot orthosis in patients with acute and subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 798–808.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
36.Salisbury, L, Shiels, J, Todd, I, et al. A feasibility study to investigate the clinical application of functional electrical stimulation (FES), for dropped foot, during the sub—acute phase of stroke—a randomized controlled trial. Physiother Theory Pract 2013; 29(1): 31–40.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
37.Sheffler, LR, Taylor, PN, Bailey, SN, et al. Surface peroneal nerve stimulation in lower limb hemiparesis: effect on quantitative gait parameters. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 94(5): 341–357.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
38.Tyson, SF, Vail, A, Nessa, T, et al. Bespoke versus off-the-shelf ankle-foot orthosis for people with stroke: randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2018; 32: 367–376.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
39.Yamamoto, S, Tanaka, S, Motojima, N. Comparison of ankle-foot orthoses with plantar flexion stop and plantar flexion resistance in the gait of stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Prosthet Orthot Int 2018; 42(5): 544–553.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
40.Karniel, N, Raveh, E, Schwartz, I, et al. Functional electrical stimulation compared with ankle-foot orthosis in subacute post stroke patients with foot drop: a pilot study. Assist Technol. Epub ahead of print 4 April 2019. DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2019.1579269.
Google Scholar | Crossref
41.Bethoux, F, Rogers, HL, Nolan, KJ, et al. Long-term follow-up to a randomized controlled trial comparing peroneal nerve functional electrical stimulation to an ankle foot orthosis for patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015; 29(10): 911–922.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
42.Kottink, AI, Hermens, HJ, Nene, AV, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an implantable 2-channel peroneal nerve stimulator on walking speed and activity in poststroke hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88(8): 971–978.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
43.Nikamp, CDM, van der Palen, J, Hermens, HJ, et al. The influence of early or delayed provision of ankle-foot orthoses on pelvis, hip and knee kinematics in patients with sub-acute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Gait Posture 2018; 63: 260–267.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
44.Nikamp, CDM, Buurke, JH, van der Palen, J, et al. Effect of providing ankle-foot orthoses in patients with acute and subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. In: Ibáñez, J, González-Vargas, J, Azorín, J, et al. (eds) Converging clinical and engineering research on neurorehabilitation II (Biosystems & Biorobotics). Cham: Springer, 2017, pp.305–309.
Google Scholar | Crossref
45.Sheffler, LR, Bailey, SN, Wilson, RD, et al. Spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic effects of a peroneal nerve stimulator versus an ankle foot orthosis in hemiparetic gait. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013; 27(5): 403–410.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
46.Perry, J, Garrett, M, Gronley, JK, et al. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke 1995; 26(6): 982–989.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
47.Ferreira, LA, Neto, HP, Grecco, LA, et al. Effect of ankle-foot orthosis on gait velocity and cadence of stroke patients: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci 2013; 25(11): 1503–1508.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
48.Fatone, S, Gard, SA, Malas, BS. Effect of ankle-foot orthosis alignment and foot-plate length on the gait of adults with poststroke hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90(5): 810–818.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
49.Berenpas, F, Schiemanck, S, Beelen, A, et al. Kinematic and kinetic benefits of implantable peroneal nerve stimulation in people with post-stroke drop foot using an ankle-foot orthosis. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2018; 36: 547–558.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
50.Pereira, S, Mehta, S, McIntyre, A, et al. Functional electrical stimulation for improving gait in persons with chronic stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2012; 19(6): 491–498.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
51.Robbins, SM, Houghton, PE, Woodbury, MG, et al. The therapeutic effect of functional and transcutaneous electric stimulation on improving gait speed in stroke patients: a meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87(6): 853–859.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
52.Haruna, H, Sugihara, S, Kon, K, et al. Change in the mechanical energy of the body center of mass in hemiplegic gait after continuous use of a plantar flexion resistive ankle-foot orthosis. J Phys Ther Sci 2013; 25(11): 1437–1443.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
53.Kobayashi, T, Orendurff, MS, Singer, ML, et al. Contribution of ankle-foot orthosis moment in regulating ankle and knee motions during gait in individuals post-stroke. Clin Biomech 2017; 45: 9–13.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline

Via https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269215519887784

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Contraceptive knowledge and use among women with intellectual, physical, or sensory disabilities: A systematic review

Abstract

Background

Women spend most of their reproductive years avoiding pregnancy. However, we know little about contraceptive knowledge and use among women with disabilities, or about strategies to improve contraceptive knowledge and decision-making in this population.

Objective

To systematically review published literature on women with disabilities and: 1) contraceptive knowledge; 2) attitudes and preferences regarding contraception; 3) contraceptive use; 4) barriers and facilitators to informed contraceptive use; and 5) effectiveness of interventions to improve informed contraceptive decision-making and use.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ERIC databases from inception through December 2017. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies for eligibility, abstracted study data, and assessed risk of bias following PRISMA guidance.

Results

We reviewed 11,659 citations to identify 62 publications of 54 unique studies (total n of women with disabilities = 21,246). No standard definition of disability existed across studies. The majority of studies focused on women with intellectual disabilities (ID). Women with ID and those who were deaf or hard-of-hearing had lower knowledge of contraceptive methods than women without disabilities. Estimates of contraceptive use varied widely, with some evidence that women with disabilities may use a narrower range of methods. Five of six studies evaluating educational interventions to increase contraceptive knowledge or use reported post-intervention improvements.

Conclusions

Women with disabilities may use a more narrow mix of contraceptive methods and are often less knowledgeable about contraceptives than women without disabilities. Interventions to improve knowledge show some promise. A lack of data exists on contraceptive preferences among women with disabilities.

 

via Contraceptive knowledge and use among women with intellectual, physical, or sensory disabilities: A systematic review – ScienceDirect

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] The effects of ankle-foot orthoses on walking speed in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials – Full Text

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ankle-foot orthoses on speed walking in patients with stroke.

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, PEDro, RehabData, RECAL, and ProQuest were searched from inception until 30 September 2019.

This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline statement. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Begg’s test and Egger’s regression method were used to assess the publication bias. Trim and fill analysis was also used to adjust any potential publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of individual studies. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

Overall, 14 studies were included with a total of 1186 participants. A small-to-moderate and non-significant improvement in favor of the ankle-foot orthosis versus without ankle-foot orthosis (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.41, 95% confidence interval = −0.15 to 0.96), similar effects of ankle-foot orthosis and functional electrical stimulation (SMD = 0.00, 95% confidence interval = −0.16 to 0.16), and a small and non-significant improvement in favor of ankle-foot orthosis versus another type of ankle-foot orthosis (SMD = 0.22, 95% confidence interval = −0.05 to 0.49) in walking speed were found. However, the quality of evidence for all comparisons was low or very low.

Despite reported positive effects in some studies, there is no firm evidence of any benefit of ankle-foot orthoses on walking speed.

A total of 50% of patients with stroke suffer from diminished mobility due to hemiparesis.1 Impaired walking is one of the major problems occurring for stroke patients;2 although 70% of patients regain their ability for walking, they experience functional constraints due to spasticity, muscle weakness, and poor balance.3 Foot drop is among main causes of improper walking related to affected individuals. In response to this abnormality, clearance in swing phase and stability in stance phase are impaired, resulting in reduced walking speed and increased risk of falling.4

The use of ankle-foot orthosis and functional electrical stimulation as two major rehabilitation interventions is propounded to improve walking speed of individuals with stroke.5 An ankle-foot orthosis contributes to stabilization of the foot and ankle in stance phase, keeping the toes up while taking steps, and improving heel strike.6,7 Ankle-foot orthoses are used in different models and designs such as articulated, non-articulated, rigid, and dynamic.8 Functional electrical stimulation refers to the usage of musculoskeletal electrical stimulation to activate the muscles while performing functional tasks,9 which has been established as an alternative to ankle-foot orthoses for patients with stroke.

To the best of our knowledge, a limited systematic review and meta-analysis has also been performed in 2013,10 aimed at investigating the effects of ankle-foot orthosis on balance and gait after stroke. In that review, different study designs were included with heterogeneous methodologies, and short-term effects were only assessed. Although the study was published in 2013, the authors only included the studies published until 2011. In recent years, two meta-analyses11,12 have been carried out which aimed at comparing the therapeutic effects of ankle-foot orthoses and functional electrical stimulation on drop foot in central nervous system (CNS) diseases. In these reviews, stroke was considered along with other CNS diseases, and ankle-foot orthoses and functional electrical stimulation were found to have the same effects. Lack of publication bias assessment, quality of evidence evaluation, and combined different types of interventions resulted in inconclusive findings in these meta-analyses.

The primary objective of this up-to-date study is systematically reviewing the literature with regard to the effects of ankle-foot orthoses on walking speed of patients with stroke.[…]

 

Continue —->  The effects of ankle-foot orthoses on walking speed in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials – Saeed Shahabi, Hosein Shabaninejad, Mohammad Kamali, Maryam Jalali, Ahmad Ahmadi Teymourlouy,

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Upper limb tendon/muscle vibration in persons with subacute and chronic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

INTRODUCTION: Results of several recent studies suggest that tendon/muscle vibration treatment may improve motor performance and reduce spasticity in individuals with stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of tendon/muscle vibration treatment for upper limb functional movements in persons with subacute and chronic stroke.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) from inception to September 2017. We included randomized controlled trials comparing upper limb tendon/muscle vibration to sham treatment/rest or conventional interventions in persons with subacute and chronic stroke. Our primary outcome was upper limb functional movement at the end of the treatment period.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included eight trials, enrolling a total of 211 participants. We found insufficient evidence to support a benefit for upper limb functional movement (standard mean difference -0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to 0.10, I2 25%, 6 trials, 135 participants). Movement time for reaching tasks significantly decreased after using tendon/muscle vibration (standard mean difference -1.20, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.35, I2 65%, 2 trials, 74 participants). We also found that tendon/muscle vibration was not associated with a significant reduction in spasticity (4 trials).

CONCLUSIONS: Besides shorter movement time for reaching tasks, we did not identify evidence to support clinical improvement in upper limb functional movements after tendon/muscle vibration treatment in persons with subacute and chronic stroke. A small number of trials were identified; therefore, there is a need for larger, higher quality studies and to consider the clinical relevance of performance-based outcome measures that focus on time to complete a functional movement such as a reach.

via Upper limb tendon/muscle vibration in persons with subacute and chronic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis – European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2019 October;55(5):558-69 – Minerva Medica – Journals

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] A systematic review of personal smart technologies used to improve outcomes in adults with acquired brain injuries

This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of personal smart technologies on outcomes in adults with acquired brain injury.

A systematic literature search was conducted on 30 May 2019. Twelve electronic databases, grey literature databases, PROSPERO, reference list and author citations were searched.

Randomised controlled trials were included if personal smart technology was used to improve independence, goal attainment/function, fatigue or quality of life in adults with acquired brain injury. Data were extracted using a bespoke form and the TIDieR checklist. Studies were graded using the PEDro scale to assess quality of reporting. Meta-analysis was conducted across four studies.

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, generating a total of 244 participants. All studies were of high quality (PEDro ⩾ 6). Interventions included personal digital assistant, smartphone app, mobile phone messaging, Neuropage and an iPad. Reporting of intervention tailoring for individual needs was inconsistent. All studies measured goal attainment/function but none measured independence or fatigue. One study (n = 42) reported a significant increase in memory-specific goal attainment (p = 0.0001) and retrospective memory function (p = 0.042) in favour of the intervention. Another study (n = 8) reported a significant increase in social participation in favour of the intervention (p = 0.01). However, our meta-analyses found no significant effect of personal smart technology on goal attainment, cognitive or psychological function.

At present, there is insufficient evidence to support the clinical benefit of personal smart technologies to improve outcomes in acquired brain injury. Researchers need to conduct more randomised studies to evaluate these interventions and measure their potential effects/harms.

 

via A systematic review of personal smart technologies used to improve outcomes in adults with acquired brain injuries – Jade Kettlewell, Roshan das Nair, Kate Radford,

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Functional Balance and Postural Control Improvements in Patients with Stroke after Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: A Meta-Analysis

Highlights

  • NIBS improved deficits in functional balance and postural control post stroke.
  • The treatment effects on postural imbalance were significant following rTMS.
  • The improvements after rTMS appeared in acute, subacute, and chronic patients.
  • A higher number of rTMS sessions significantly increased the treatment effects.

Abstract

Objectives

The postural imbalance post stroke limits individual’s walking abilities as well as increase the risk of falling. We investigated the short-term treatment effects of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on functional balance and postural control in patients with stroke.

Data Sources

We started the search via PubMed and ISI’s Web of Science on March 1, 2019 and concluded the search on April 30, 2019.

Study Selection

The meta-analysis included studies that used either repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for the recovery of functional balance and postural control post stroke. All included studies used either randomized control trial or crossover designs with a sham control group.

Data Extraction

Three researchers independently performed data extraction and assessing methodological quality and publication bias. We calculated overall and individual effect sizes using random effects meta-analysis models.

Data Synthesis

The random effects meta-analysis model on the 18 qualified studies identified the significant positive effects relating to NIBS in terms of functional balance and postural control post stroke. The moderator variable analyses revealed that these treatment effects were only significant in rTMS across acute/subacute and chronic stroke patients whereas tDCS did not show any significant therapeutic effects. The meta-regression analysis showed that a higher number of rTMS sessions was significantly associated with more improvements in functional balance and postural control post stroke.

Conclusions

Our systematic review and meta-analysis confirmed that NIBS may be an effective option for restoring functional balance and postural control for patients with stroke.

via Functional Balance and Postural Control Improvements in Patients with Stroke after Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: A Meta-Analysis – Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract + References] Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor recovery in adult patients with stroke, taking into account the parameters that could influence the motor recovery responses. The second aim was to identify the best tDCS parameters and recommendations available based on the enhanced motor recovery demonstrated by the analyzed studies. Our systematic review was performed by searching full-text articles published before February 18, 2019 in the PubMed database. Different methods of applying tDCS in association with several complementary therapies were identified. Studies investigating the motor recovery effects of tDCS in adult patients with stroke were considered. Studies investigating different neurologic conditions and psychiatric disorders or those not meeting our methodologic criteria were excluded. The main parameters and outcomes of tDCS treatments are reported. There is not a robust concordance among the study outcomes with regard to the enhancement of motor recovery associated with the clinical application of tDCS. This is mainly due to the heterogeneity of clinical data, tDCS approaches, combined interventions, and outcome measurements. tDCS could be an effective approach to promote adaptive plasticity in the stroke population with significant positive premotor and postmotor rehabilitation effects. Future studies with larger sample sizes and high-quality studies with a better standardization of stimulation protocols are needed to improve the study quality, further corroborate our results, and identify the optimal tDCS protocols.

References

  • Allman, C., Amadi, U., Winkler, A.M., Wilkins, L., Filippini, N., Kischka, U., Stagg, C.J., and Johansen-Berg, H. (2016). Ipsilesional anodal tDCS enhances the functional benefits of rehabilitation in patients after stroke. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 330re1.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ameli, M., Grefkes, C., Kemper, F., Riegg, F.P., Rehme, A.K., Karbe, H., Fink, G.R., and Nowak, D.A. (2009). Differential effects of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over ipsilesional primary motor cortex in cortical and subcortical middle cerebral artery stroke. Ann. Neurol. 66, 298–309.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Andrade, S.M., Batista, L.M., Nogueira, L.L., de Oliveira, E.A., de Carvalho, A.G., Lima, S.S., Santana, J.R., de Lima, E.C., and Fernández-Calvo, B. (2017a). Constraint-induced movement therapy combined with transcranial direct current stimulation over premotor cortex improves motor function in severe stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Rehab. Res. Pract. 2017, 6842549.Google Scholar
  • Andrade, S.M., Ferreira, J.J.A., Rufino, T.S., Medeiros, G., Brito, J.D., da Silva, M.A., and Moreira, R.N. (2017b). Effects of different montages of transcranial direct current stimulation on the risk of falls and lower limb function after stroke. Neurol. Res. 39, 1037–1043.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bikson, M., Grossman, P., Thomas, C., Zannou, A.L., Jiang, J., Adnan, T., Mourdoukoutas, A.P., Kronberg, G., Truong, D., Boggio, P., et al. (2016). Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul. 9, 641–661.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bolognini, N. and Vallar, G. (2015). Stimolare il cervello. Manuale di stimolazione cerebrale non invasiva (pp. 1–224). il Mulino.Google Scholar
  • Bolognini, N., Pascual-Leone, A., and Fregni, F. (2009). Using non-invasive brain stimulation to augment motor training-induced plasticity. J. Neuroeng. Rehab. 6, 8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bolognini, N., Vallar, G., Casati, C., Latif, L.A., El-Nazer, R., Williams, J., Banco, E., Macea, D.D., Tesio, L., Chessa, C., et al. (2011). Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDC combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in post stroke patients. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 25, 819–829.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bortoletto, M., Rodella, C., Salvador, R., Miranda, P.C., and Miniussi, C. (2016). Reduced current spread by concentric electrodes in transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). Brain Stimul. 9, 525–528.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bradnam, L.V., Stinear, C.M., Barber, P.A., and Byblow, W.D. (2012). Contralesional hemisphere control of the proximal paretic upper limb following stroke. Cereb. Cortex 22, 2662–2671.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brunelin, J., Mondino, M., Gassab, L., Haesebaert, F., Gaha, L., Suaud-Chagny, M.F., Saoud, M., Mechri, A., and Poulet, E. (2012a). Examining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a treatment for hallucinations in schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 169, 719–724.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brunoni, A.R., Zanao, T.A., Ferrucci, R., Priori, A., Valiengo, L., de Oliveira, J.F., Boggio, P.S., Lotufo, P.A., Benseñor, I.M., and Fregni, F. (2013c). Bifrontal tDCS prevents implicit learning acquisition in antidepressant-free patients with major depressive disorder. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 43, 146–150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Burke Quinlan, E., Dodakian, L., See, J., McKenzie, A., Le, V., Wojnowicz, M., Shahbaba, B., and Cramer, S.C. (2015). Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann. Neurol. 77, 132–145.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Byblow, W.D., Stinear, C.M., Barber, P.A., Petoe, M.A., and Ackerley, S.J. (2015). Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann. Neurol. 78, 848–859.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chang, M.C., Kim, D.Y., and Park, D.H. (2015). Enhancement of cortical excitability and lower limb motor function in patients with stroke by transcranial direct current stimulation. Brain Stimul. 8, 561–566.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).Google Scholar
  • Coin, A., Najjar, M., Catanzaro, S., Orru, G., Sampietro, S., Sergi, G., Manzato, E., Perissinotto, E., Rinaldi, G., Sarti, S., et al. (2009). A retrospective pilot study on the development of cognitive, behavioral and functional disorders in a sample of patients with early dementia of Alzheimer type. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 49, 35–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Conti, C.L. and Nakamura-Palacios, E.M. (2013). Bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex changes the drug-cued reactivity in the anterior cingulate cortex of crack-cocaine addicts. Brain Stimul. 7, 130–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Da Costa Santos, C.M., de Mattos Pimenta, C.A., and Nobre, M.R. (2007). The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem. 15, 508–511.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • De Vries, M.H., Barth, A.C., Maiworm, S., Knecht, S., Zwitserlood, P., and Flöel, A. (2010). Electrical stimulation of Broca’s area enhances implicit learning of an artificial grammar. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 22, 2427–2436.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Di Lazzaro, V., Dileone, M., Capone, F., Pellegrino, G., Ranieri, F., Musumeci, G., Florio, L., Di Pino, G., and Fregni, F. (2014). Immediate and late modulation of interhemispheric imbalance with bilateral transcranial direct current stimulation in acute stroke. Brain Stimul. 7, 841–848.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Feng, W., Wang, J., Chhatbar, P.Y., Doughty, C., Landsittel, D., Lioutas, V.A., and Schlaug, G. (2015). Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann. Neurol. 78, 860–870.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Guidi, I., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Vergari, M., Marceglia, S., Cogiamanian, F., Barbieri, S., Scarpini, E., and Priori, A. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation improves recognition memory in Alzheimer disease. Neurology 71, 493–498.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Figlewski, K., Blicher, J.U., Mortensen, J., Severinsen, K.E., Nielsen, J.F., and Andersen, H. (2017). Transcranial direct current stimulation potentiates improvements in functional ability in patients with chronic stroke receiving constraint-induced movement therapy. Stroke 48, 229–232.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Nitsche, M., Bermpohl, F., Antal, A., Feredoes, E., Marcolin, M.A., Rigonatt, S.P., Silva, M.T., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2005). Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of prefrontal cortex enhances working memory. Exp. Brain Res. 166, 23–30.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Lima, M.C., Ferreira, M.J., Wagner, T., Rigonatti, S.P., Castro, A.W., Souza, D.R., Riberto, M., Freedman, S.D., et al. (2006a). A sham controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain 122, 197–209.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Boggio, P.S., Santos, M.C., Lima, M., Vieira, A.L., Rigonatti, S.P., Silva, M.T., Barbosa, E.R., Nitsche, M.A., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2006b). Non invasive cortical stimulation with transcranial direct current stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 21, 1693–1702.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fregni, F., Gimenes, R., Valle, A.C., Ferreira, M.J., Rocha, R.R., Natalle, L., Bravo, R., Rigonatti, S.P., Freedman, S.D., Nitsche, M.A., et al. (2006c). A randomized, sham-controlled, proof of principle study of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum 54, 3988–3998.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fusco, A., Assenza, F., Iosa, M., Izzo, S., Altavilla, R., Paolucci, S., and Vernieri, F. (2014). The ineffective role of cathodal tDCS in enhancing the functional motor outcomes in early phase of stroke rehabilitation: an experimental trial. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 547290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Geroin, C., Picelli, A., Munari, D., Waldner, A., Tomelleri, C., and Smania, N. (2011). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary comparison. Clin. Rehabil. 25, 537–548.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gladwin, T.E., den Uyl, T.E., Fregni, F.F., and Wiers, R.W. (2012). Enhancement of selective attention by tDCS: interaction with interference in a Sternberg task. Neurosci. Lett. 512, 33–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Grefkes, C. and Fink, G.R. (2014). Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. Lancet Neurol. 13, 206–216.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hamoudi, M., Schambra, H.M., Fritsch, B., Schoechlin-Marx, A., Weiller, C., Cohen, L.G., and Reis, J. (2018). Transcranial direct current stimulation enhances motor skill learning but not generalization in chronic stroke. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 32, 295–308.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement (Park Square, Oxford: Rutledge).Google Scholar
  • Herrmann, C.S., Rach, S., Neuling, T., and Strüber, D. (2013). Transcranial alternating current stimulation: a review of the underlying mechanisms and modulation of cognitive processes. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hesse, S., Waldner, A., Mehrholz, J., Tomelleri, C., Pohl, M., and Werner, C. (2011). Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted arm training in subacute stroke patients: an exploratory, randomized multicenter trial. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 25, 838–846.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Holman, L., Head, M.L., Lanfear, R., and Jennions, M.D. (2015). Evidence of experimental bias in the life sciences: why we need blind data recording. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002190.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Horn, S.D., DeJong, G., Smout, R.J., Gassaway, J., James, R., and Conroy, B. (2005). Stroke rehabilitation patients, practice, and outcomes: is earlier and more aggressive therapy better? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 86, 101–114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Horvath, J.C., Forte, J.D., and Carter, O. (2015a). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimul. 8, 535–550.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Horvath, J.C., Forte, J.D., and Carter, O. (2015b). Evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) generates little-to-no reliable neurophysiologic effect beyond MEP amplitude modulation in healthy human subjects: a systematic review. Neuropsychologia 66, 213–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hoyer, E.H. and Celnik, P.A. (2011). Understanding and enhancing motor recovery after stroke using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 29, 395–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F.C. and Cohen, L.G. (2006). Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke? Lancet Neurol. 5, 708–712.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F., Celnik, P., Giraux, P., Floel, A., Wu, W.H., Gerloff, C., and Cohen, L.G. (2005). Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain 128, 490–499.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hummel, F.C., Voller, B., Celnik, P., Floel, A., Giraux, P., Gerloff, C., and Cohen, L.G. (2006). Effects of brain polarization on reaction times and pinch force in chronic stroke. BMC Neurosci. 7, 73.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ilić, N.V., Dubljanin-Raspopović, E., Nedeljković, U., Tomanović-Vujadinović, S., Milanović, S.D., Petronić-Marković, I., and Ilić, T.V. (2016). Effects of anodal tDCS and occupational therapy on fine motor skill deficits in patients with chronic stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 34, 935–945.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ivanenko, Y.P., Poppele, R.E., and Lacquaniti, F. (2009). Distributed neural networks for controlling human locomotion: lessons from normal and SCI subjects. Brain Res. Bull. 78, 13–21.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Khedr, E.M., Shawky, O.A., El-Hammady, D.H., Rothwell, J.C., Darwish, E.S., Mostafa, O.M., and Tohamy, A.M. (2013). Effect of anodal versus cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 7, 592–601.Google Scholar
  • Kim, D.Y., Lim, J.Y., Kang, E.K., You, D.S., Oh, M.K., Oh, B.M., and Paik, N.J. (2010). Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on motor recovery in patients with subacute stroke. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89, 879–886.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Koo, W.R., Jang, B.H., and Kim, C.R. (2018). Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on somatosensory recovery after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 97, 507–513.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kwakkel, G. and Kollen, B.J. (2013). Predicting activities after stroke: what is clinically relevant? Int. J. Stroke 8, 25–32.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Langhorne, P., Coupar, F., and Pollock, A. (2009). Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 8, 741–754.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lee, S.J. and Chun, M.H. (2014). Combination transcranial direct current stimulation and virtual reality therapy for upper extremity training in patients with subacute stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 95, 431–438.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lefaucheur, J.P., Antal, A., Ayache, S.S., Benninger, D.H., Brunelin, J., Cogiamanian, F., Cotelli, M., De Ridder, D., Ferrucci, R., Langguth, B., et al. (2017). Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin. Neurophysiol. 128, 56–92.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Leon, D., Cortes, M., Elder, J., Kumru, H., Laxe, S., Edwards, D.J., Tormos, J.M., Bernabeu, M., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2017). tDCS does not enhance the effects of robot-assisted gait training in patients with subacute stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 35, 377–384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Liew, S.L., Santarnecchi, E., Buch, E.R., and Cohen, L.G. (2014). Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8, 378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lindenberg, R., Renga, V., Zhu, L.L., Nair, D., and Schlaug, G. (2010). Bihemispheric brain stimulation facilitates motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Neurology 75, 2176–2184.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lopez-Espuela, F., Zamorano, J.D.P., Ramírez-Moreno, J.M., Jiménez-Caballero, P.E., Portilla-Cuenca, J.C., Lavado-García, J.M., and Casado-Naranjo, I. (2015). Determinants of quality of life in stroke survivors after 6 months, from a comprehensive stroke unit: a longitudinal study. Biol. Res. Nurs. 17, 461–468.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lüdemann-Podubecká, J., Bösl, K., Rothhardt, S., Verheyden, G., and Nowak, D.A. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation for motor recovery of upper limb function after stroke. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 47, 245–259.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Marshall, L., Molle, M., Hallschmid, M., and Born, J. (2004). Transcranial direct current stimulation during sleep improves declarative memory. J. Neurosci. 24, 9985.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mazzoleni, S., Tran, V.D., Iardella, L., Dario, P., and Posteraro, F. (2017). Randomized, sham-controlled trial based on transcranial direct current stimulation and wrist robot-assisted integrated treatment on subacute stroke patients: intermediate results. In: 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). IEEE, 555–560. doi:10.1109/icorr.2017.8009306.Google Scholar
  • Menezes, I.S., Cohen, L.G., Mello, E.A., Machado, A.G., Peckham, P.H., Anjos, S.M., Siqueira, I.L., Conti, J., Plow, E.B., and Conforto, A.B. (2018). Combined brain and peripheral nerve stimulation in chronic stroke patients with moderate to severe motor impairment. Neuromodulation 21, 176–183.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Miranda, P.C., Lomarev, M., and Hallett, M. (2006). Modeling the current distribution during transcranial direct current stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117, 1623–1629.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Int. Med. 151, 264–269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nicolo, P., Magnin, C., Pedrazzini, E., Plomp, G., Mottaz, A., Schnider, A., and Guggisberg, A.G. (2018). Comparison of neuroplastic responses to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation and continuous theta burst stimulation in subacute stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 99, 862–872.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A. and Paulus, W. (2000). Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation. J. Physiol. 527, 633–639.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A. and Paulus, W. (2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology 57, 1899–1901.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Schauenburg, A., Lang, N., Liebetanz, D., Exner, C., Paulus, W., and Tergau, F. (2003). Facilitation of implicit motor learning by weak transcranial direct current stimulation of the primary motor cortex in the human. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 619–626.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Seeber, A., Frommann, K., Klein, C.C., Rochford, C., Nitsche, M.S., Fricke, K., Liebetanz, D., Lang, N., Antal, A., et al. (2005). Modulating parameters of excitability during and after transcranial direct current stimulation of the human motor cortex. J. Physiol. 568, 291–303.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nitsche, M.A., Kuo, M.F., Karrasch, R., Wächter, B., Liebetanz, D., and Paulus, W. (2009). Serotonin affects transcranial direct current-induced neuroplasticity in humans. Biol. Psychiatry 66, 503–508.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nowak, D.A., Bösl, K., Podubeckà, J., and Carey, J.R. (2010). Noninvasive brain stimulation and motor recovery after stroke. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 28, 531–544.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nudo, R.J. and Milliken, G.W. (1996). Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J. Neurophysiol. 75, 2144–2149.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Platz, T. (2004). Impairment-oriented training (IOT): scientific concept and evidence-based treatment strategies. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 22, 301–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plow, E.B., Carey, J.R., Nudo, R.J., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Invasive cortical stimulation to promote recovery of function after stroke: a critical appraisal. Stroke 40, 1926–1931.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Polanía, R., Nitsche, M.A., and Paulus, W. (2011). Modulating functional connectivity patterns and topological functional organization of the human brain with transcranial direct current stimulation. Hum. Brain Mapping 32, 1236–1249.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Priori, A., Berardelli, A., Rona, S., Accornero, N., and Manfredi, M. (1998). Polarization of the human motor cortex through the scalp. Neuroreport 9, 2257–2260.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rossi, C., Sallustio, F., Di Legge, S., Stanzione, P., and Koch, G. (2013). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the affected hemisphere does not accelerate recovery of acute stroke patients. Eur. J. Neurol. 20, 202–204.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Saeys, W., Vereeck, L., Lafosse, C., Truijen, S., Wuyts, F., and Van De Heyning, P. (2015). Transcranial direct current stimulation in the recovery of postural control after stroke: a pilot study. Disabil. Rehabil. 37, 1–7.Google Scholar
  • Sattler, V., Acket, B., Raposo, N., Thalamas, C., Loubinoux, I., Chollet, F., and Simonetta-Moreau, M. (2015). Anodal tDCS combined with radial nerve stimulation promotes hand motor recovery in the acute phase after ischemic stroke. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 29, 743–754.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Seo, H.G., Lee, W.H., Lee, S.H., Yi, Y., Kim, K.D., and Oh, B.M. (2017). Robotic-assisted gait training combined with transcranial direct current stimulation in chronic stroke patients: a pilot double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 35, 527–536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shekhawat, G.S., Searchfield, G.D., and Stinear, C.M. (2013a). Randomized trial of transcranial direct current stimulation and hearing aids for tinnitus management. Neurorehab. Neural Rep. 28, 410–419.Google Scholar
  • Simonetti, D., Zollo, L., Milighetti, S., Miccinilli, S., Bravi, M., Ranieri, F., Magrone, G., Guglielmelli, E., Di Lazzaro, V., and Sterzi, S. (2017). Literature review on the effects of tDCS coupled with robotic therapy in post stroke upper limb rehabilitation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 268.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stinear, C.M. and Byblow, W.D. (2014). Predicting and accelerating motor recovery after stroke. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 27, 624–630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Straudi, S., Fregni, F., Martinuzzi, C., Pavarelli, C., Salvioli, S., and Basaglia, N. (2016). tDCS and robotics on upper limb stroke rehabilitation: effect modification by stroke duration and type of stroke. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 8.Google Scholar
  • Suzuki, Y., and Naito, E. (2012). Neuro-modulation in dorsal premotor cortex facilitates human multi-task ability. J. Behav. Brain Sci. 2, 372.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Terney, D., Chaieb, L., Moliadze, V., Antal, A., and Paulus, W. (2008). Increasing human brain excitability by transcranial high-frequency random noise stimulation. J. Neurosci. 28, 14147–14155.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Viana, R.T., Laurentino, G.E., Souza, R.J., Fonseca, J.B., Silva Filho, E.M., Dias, S.N., Teixeira-Salmela, L.F., and Monte-Silva, K.K. (2014). Effects of the addition of transcranial direct current stimulation to virtual reality therapy after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation 34, 437–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wang, Y., Shen, Y., Cao, X., Shan, C., Pan, J., He, H., Ma, Y., and Yuan, T.F. (2016). Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates cue-induced craving for heroin. J. Psychiatry Res. 79, 1–3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wu, D., Qian, L., Zorowitz, R.D., Zhang, L., Qu, Y., and Yuan, Y. (2013). Effects on decreasing upper-limb post stroke muscle tone using transcranial direct current stimulation: a randomized sham-controlled study. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 94, 1–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zehr, E.P. (2005). Neural control of rhythmic human movement: the common core hypothesis. Exercise Sport Sci. Rev. 33, 54–60.Google Scholar
  • Ziemann, U., Paulus, W., Nitsche, M.A., Pascual-Leone, A., Byblow, W.D., Berardelli, A., Siebner, H.R., Classen, J., Cohen, L.G., and Rothwell, J.C. (2008). Consensus: motor cortex plasticity protocols. Brain Stimul. 1, 164–182.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

via Motor stroke recovery after tDCS: a systematic review : Reviews in the Neurosciences

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Effectiveness of home-based virtual reality on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes: a systematic review

Background: A 2015 systematic review evaluated the efficacy of utilizing virtual reality in vestibular rehabilitation programs. However, the biggest limitation with most of the included virtual reality systems was the associated cost of the equipment. In addition, home-based exercises are the preferred method of vestibular rehabilitation treatments.

Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of home-based virtual reality systems on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes.

Methods: The following databases were examined: CINAHL Complete, ProQuest Medical Database, and PubMed. The following search terms were utilized: ‘video OR computer’ AND ‘vestibular’ AND ‘home’. The evidence level for all of the included articles was evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence and the methodological rigor for all of the included articles was evaluated using a 10-item tool created by Medlicott and Harris.

Results: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven articles were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. This systematic review found that home-based virtual reality interventions were able to effectively achieve the primary objectives of vestibular rehabilitation and that the use of these interventions was equally as effective as the use of a traditional vestibular rehabilitation program. In addition, it may be most beneficial to combine virtual reality with traditional vestibular rehabilitation.

Conclusions: Clinicians should consider using a combination of virtual reality and traditional vestibular rehabilitation when treating individuals who have been diagnosed with a vestibular dysfunction.

 

via Effectiveness of home-based virtual reality on vestibular rehabilitation outcomes: a systematic review: Physical Therapy Reviews: Vol 0, No 0

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? – Full Text

Background: Upper limb impairment is a common problem for people with neurological disabilities, affecting activity, performance, quality of life, and independence. Accurate, timely assessments are required for effective rehabilitation, and development of novel interventions. International consensus on upper limb assessment is needed to make research findings more meaningful, provide a benchmark for quality in clinical practice, more cost-effective neurorehabilitation and improved outcomes for neurological patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review, as part of the output of a European COST Action, to identify what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment.

Methods: We systematically reviewed published guidance on measures and protocols for assessment of upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation via electronic databases from January 2007–December 2017. Additional records were then identified through other sources. Records were selected for inclusion based on scanning of titles, abstracts and full text by two authors working independently, and a third author if there was disagreement. Records were included if they referred to “rehabilitation” and “assessment” or “measurement”. Reasons for exclusion were documented.

Results: From the initial 552 records identified (after duplicates were removed), 34 satisfied our criteria for inclusion, and only six recommended specific outcome measures and /or protocols. Records were divided into National Guidelines and other practice guidelines published in peer reviewed Journals. There was agreement that assessment is critical, should be conducted early and at regular intervals and that there is a need for standardized measures. Assessments should be conducted by a healthcare professional trained in using the measure and should encompass body function and structure, activity and participation.

Conclusions: We present a comprehensive, critical, and original summary of current recommendations. Defining a core set of measures and agreed protocols requires international consensus between experts representing the diverse and multi-disciplinary field of neurorehabilitation including clinical researchers and practitioners, rehabilitation technology researchers, and commercial developers. Current lack of guidance may hold-back progress in understanding function and recovery. Together with a Delphi consensus study and an overview of systematic reviews of outcome measures it will contribute to the development of international guidelines for upper limb assessment in neurological conditions.

Introduction

Worldwide prevalence of stroke in 2010 was 33 million, with 16.9 million people having a first stroke, of which 795,000 were American and 1.1 million European (1). It has been estimated that approximately one third of people fail to regain upper limb capacity, despite receiving therapy (2). This has important implications for both individuals and the wider society as reduced upper limb function is associated with dependence and poor quality of life for both patients and carers (35) and impacts on national economies (6).

While stroke has the highest prevalence, other neurological conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and Traumatic Brian Injury, have a significant incidence and there are often similarities in presentation, and treatment and therefore assessment. The worldwide incidence of SCI is 40–80 cases per million population and the estimated European mean annual rate of MS incidence is 4.3 cases per 100,000 (7). Recently, Kister et al. (8) reported that 60% of people with MS have impaired hand function. The impact of upper limb dysfunction on ADL is higher than in stroke, as both sides are often affected (9). Although dysfunction after SCI depends on level of injury, upper limb function is consistently cited as a health priority. The incidence rate of TBI in Europe is about 235 per 100,000 population (10). Outcome data among European countries are very heterogeneous. From the US however, it is known that about 1.1% of the population suffer a TBI resulting in long term disability (11).

 

Continue —>  Frontiers | A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? | Neurology

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: