Suppr超能文献

对改善多发性硬化症患者步态速度的证据的批判性评估:达氟吡啶与步态训练

Critical Appraisal of Evidence for Improving Gait Speed in People with Multiple Sclerosis: Dalfampridine Versus Gait Training.

作者信息

Plummer Prudence

机构信息

Division of Physical Therapy, Department of Allied Health Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

出版信息

Int J MS Care. 2016 May-Jun;18(3):105-15. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2014-114.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Research has not yet compared the treatment effects of dalfampridine with traditional rehabilitation of gait impairments in multiple sclerosis (MS). The purpose of this review was to critically appraise the evidence for dalfampridine and gait training for increasing gait speed in people with MS.

METHODS

A systematic search of the research literature was conducted. Consideration was given to only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. For selection of gait training studies, only studies involving task-specific gait training interventions and measuring treatment effects on gait speed were considered.

RESULTS

Treatment effects on gait speed were extracted from four studies examining the efficacy of dalfampridine and six gait training RCTs. Overall mean increase in gait speed with dalfampridine was 0.07 m/s (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.09 m/s) compared to 0.06 m/s (95% CI, 0.02-0.10 m/s) for gait training. Among dalfampridine responders (38% of participants in RCTs), the mean increase in gait speed was 0.16 m/s (95% CI, 0.13-0.18 m/s). Mean increases for individual gait training interventions ranged from 0.01 to 0.39 m/s; however, CIs were wide due to small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to conclude whether dalfampridine or gait training is superior for improving gait speed in people with MS. These findings should be viewed cautiously due to differences in study populations and small sample sizes in gait training studies. Both treatment approaches provide only short-lived improvements. Head-to-head comparison trials and studies combining both treatment modalities are needed.

摘要

背景

研究尚未比较氨吡啶与传统康复方法对多发性硬化症(MS)步态障碍的治疗效果。本综述的目的是严格评估氨吡啶和步态训练对提高MS患者步态速度的证据。

方法

对研究文献进行系统检索。仅考虑随机对照试验(RCT)、系统评价和荟萃分析。对于步态训练研究的选择,仅考虑涉及特定任务步态训练干预并测量对步态速度治疗效果的研究。

结果

从四项研究氨吡啶疗效的研究和六项步态训练RCT中提取了对步态速度的治疗效果。与步态训练的0.06 m/s(95%置信区间[CI],0.02 - 0.10 m/s)相比,氨吡啶使步态速度总体平均增加0.07 m/s(95% CI,0.04 - 0.09 m/s)。在氨吡啶反应者中(RCT参与者的38%),步态速度平均增加0.16 m/s(95% CI,0.13 - 0.18 m/s)。个体步态训练干预的平均增加范围为0.01至0.39 m/s;然而,由于样本量小,置信区间较宽。

结论

目前的证据不足以得出氨吡啶或步态训练在改善MS患者步态速度方面谁更优越的结论。由于研究人群的差异和步态训练研究中的小样本量,这些发现应谨慎看待。两种治疗方法都只能提供短暂的改善。需要进行直接比较试验以及结合两种治疗方式的研究。

相似文献

10
Erratum.勘误
Mult Scler. 2016 Oct;22(12):NP9-NP11. doi: 10.1177/1352458515585718. Epub 2015 Jun 3.

本文引用的文献

3
Walking speed: the functional vital sign.步行速度:功能性生命体征。
J Aging Phys Act. 2015 Apr;23(2):314-22. doi: 10.1123/japa.2013-0236. Epub 2014 May 2.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验