Aziz N A, Leonardi-Bee J, Phillips M, Gladman J R F, Legg L, Walker M F
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Department of Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 53000.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;2008(2):CD005952. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005952.pub2.
Current practice of rehabilitation intervention mainly concentrates on the first six months of stroke. At present, there is no agreed consensus about the benefits of such a service more than one year after stroke.
To ascertain whether therapy-based rehabilitation services can influence outcome one year or more after stroke.
We searched the trials registers of the following Cochrane Review Groups: Stroke Group (last searched September 2007), Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (last searched October 2006) and Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (last searched October 2006). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2006), EMBASE (1980 to October 2006), CINAHL (1982 to October 2006), AMED (1985 to October 2006), PEDro (1952 to October 2006), British Nursing Index (1993 to October 2006), DARE (1994 to October 2006), HMIC (1979 to October 2006) and NHS EED (1991 to October 2006). We also searched dissertation databases and ongoing trials and research registers, scanned reference lists and contacted researchers and experts in the field.
All randomised controlled trials of community-based stroke patients, in which at least 75% were recruited one year after stroke and received a therapy-based rehabilitation intervention that was compared with conventional care.
Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data on a number of pre-specified outcomes. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who had deteriorated or were dependent in personal activities of daily living at the end of scheduled follow up.
We identified five trials of 487 participants that were eligible for the review. Overall, there was inconclusive evidence as to whether therapy-based rehabilitation intervention one year after stroke was able to influence any relevant patient or carer outcome. Trials varied in design, type of interventions provided, quality, and outcomes assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the dearth of evidence investigating long-term therapy-based rehabilitation interventions for patients with stroke.
目前康复干预措施主要集中在中风后的头六个月。目前,对于中风一年后提供此类服务的益处尚无共识。
确定基于疗法的康复服务是否能对中风一年或更长时间后的预后产生影响。
我们检索了以下Cochrane系统评价组的试验注册库:中风组(最后检索时间为2007年9月)、有效实践与护理组织组(最后检索时间为2006年10月)以及痴呆与认知改善组(最后检索时间为2006年10月)。我们还检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2006年第4期)、MEDLINE(1966年至2006年10月)、EMBASE(1980年至2006年10月)、CINAHL(1982年至2006年10月)、AMED(1985年至2006年10月)、PEDro(1952年至2006年10月)、英国护理索引(1993年至2006年10月)、DARE(1994年至2006年10月)、HMIC(1979年至2006年10月)以及NHS EED(1991年至2006年10月)。我们还检索了学位论文数据库、正在进行的试验和研究注册库,浏览了参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的研究人员和专家。
所有针对社区中风患者的随机对照试验,其中至少75%的患者在中风一年后入组,并接受了基于疗法的康复干预,且与常规护理进行比较。
两位综述作者独立选择试验,并提取了一些预先设定结局的数据。主要结局是在预定随访结束时病情恶化或在日常生活活动中需要依赖他人的参与者比例。
我们确定了五项涉及487名参与者的试验符合综述纳入标准。总体而言,关于中风一年后基于疗法的康复干预是否能够影响任何相关患者或护理者结局,证据尚无定论。试验在设计、所提供的干预类型、质量以及评估的结局方面存在差异。
本综述凸显了针对中风患者长期基于疗法的康复干预研究证据的匮乏。