Departments of Physiotherapy and Medicine, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (K.S.H.), University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Australia.
Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Institute for Health Transformation, and Alfred Health Partnership, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia (S.F.K.).
Stroke. 2021 Nov;52(11):3706-3717. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034348. Epub 2021 Oct 4.
This systematic review aimed to investigate timing, dose, and efficacy of upper limb intervention during the first 6 months poststroke. Three online databases were searched up to July 2020. Titles/abstracts/full-text were reviewed independently by 2 authors. Randomized and nonrandomized studies that enrolled people within the first 6 months poststroke, aimed to improve upper limb recovery, and completed preintervention and postintervention assessments were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane reporting tools. Studies were examined by timing (recovery epoch), dose, and intervention type. Two hundred and sixty-one studies were included, representing 228 (n=9704 participants) unique data sets. The number of studies completed increased from one (n=37 participants) between 1980 and 1984 to 91 (n=4417 participants) between 2015 and 2019. Timing of intervention start has not changed (median 38 days, interquartile range [IQR], 22-66) and study sample size remains small (median n=30, IQR 20-48). Most studies were rated high risk of bias (62%). Study participants were enrolled at different recovery epochs: 1 hyperacute (<24 hours), 13 acute (1-7 days), 176 early subacute (8-90 days), 34 late subacute (91-180 days), and 4 were unable to be classified to an epoch. For both the intervention and control groups, the median dose was 45 (IQR, 600-1430) min/session, 1 (IQR, 1-1) session/d, 5 (IQR, 5-5) d/wk for 4 (IQR, 3-5) weeks. The most common interventions tested were electromechanical (n=55 studies), electrical stimulation (n=38 studies), and constraint-induced movement (n=28 studies) therapies. Despite a large and growing body of research, intervention dose and sample size of included studies were often too small to detect clinically important effects. Furthermore, interventions remain focused on subacute stroke recovery with little change in recent decades. A united research agenda that establishes a clear biological understanding of timing, dose, and intervention type is needed to progress stroke recovery research. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018019367/CRD42018111629.
本系统评价旨在探讨卒中后 6 个月内上肢干预的时机、剂量和疗效。截至 2020 年 7 月,我们检索了 3 个在线数据库。2 位作者独立对标题/摘要/全文进行了审查。纳入了在卒中后 6 个月内入组、旨在改善上肢恢复、并完成干预前和干预后评估的随机和非随机研究。使用 Cochrane 报告工具评估偏倚风险。研究按时机(恢复时相)、剂量和干预类型进行检查。共纳入 261 项研究,代表 228 项(n=9704 名参与者)独特数据集。完成的研究数量从 1980 年至 1984 年的一项(n=37 名参与者)增加到 2015 年至 2019 年的 91 项(n=4417 名参与者)。干预开始的时机没有改变(中位数 38 天,四分位距[IQR],22-66),研究样本量仍然较小(中位数 n=30,IQR 20-48)。大多数研究的偏倚风险被评为高风险(62%)。研究参与者被纳入不同的恢复时相:1 项超急性期(<24 小时),13 项急性期(1-7 天),176 项早期亚急性期(8-90 天),34 项晚期亚急性期(91-180 天),4 项无法归类为时相。对于干预组和对照组,中位数剂量均为 45(IQR,600-1430)min/session,1(IQR,1-1)session/d,5(IQR,5-5)d/wk,持续 4(IQR,3-5)周。测试的最常见干预措施是机电(n=55 项研究)、电刺激(n=38 项研究)和强制性运动疗法(n=28 项研究)。尽管有大量不断增长的研究,但纳入研究的干预剂量和样本量通常太小,无法检测到有临床意义的效果。此外,干预措施仍然集中在亚急性期卒中恢复上,近几十年来几乎没有变化。需要一个统一的研究议程,明确了解时机、剂量和干预类型的生物学基础,以推进卒中恢复研究。前瞻性注册的系统评价 ID:CRD42018019367/CRD42018111629。