Trier University of Applied Sciences, Department of Computer Science, Therapy Sciences, Germany (S.T., S.M., M.S.).
Goethe University Frankfurt, Institute of Sports Sciences, Sports Medicine and Exercise Physiology, Germany (S.T., L.V., C.R., K.H., M.B.).
Stroke. 2023 Jul;54(7):1839-1853. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.043110. Epub 2023 Jun 9.
Although numerous effective exercise interventions can treat upper limb motor impairments after stroke, it remains unknown as to which are the most effective. The objective of the present study was to investigate the comparative effectiveness of various exercise interventions of the upper limb for individuals with an acute or subacute stroke.
For this systematic review with network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library CENTRAL and Web of Science from database inception to September 2021 for randomized controlled trials examining individuals within 6 months of stroke onset, active upper limb exercise interventions, and any kind of control intervention. The primary outcome was upper limb motor function, secondary outcomes were activities of daily living and social participation, both assessed at post-intervention and follow-up. Nonspecific/multimodal active upper limb therapy was the standard comparator. Standardized mean differences, that is, Hedge's g, were the effect size estimators. We calculated Frequentist-based network meta-analysis for the comparative effectiveness calculations using the R package netmeta. Main analyses were network plotting to display the geometry of the network and P-scores to summarize the intervention hierarchy. Results were derived from direct within-study and indirect between-study evidence comparisons. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool II assessed all risk of bias domains.
This review involved 145 randomized controlled trial on 6432 participants and 45 different treatment categories. The network meta-analysis analyzed 119 randomized controlled trials on 5553 participants and 41 different treatment categories. Electrical stimulation combined with task-specific training (standardized mean difference, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.51-1.55]; <0.0001, P-score=0.11), high-volume constraint-induced movement therapy (0.86 [0.4-1.32]; =0.0003, P-score=0.18), and strength training (0.65 [0.17-1.13]; =0.01, P-score=0.28) were the most effective interventions (each k=107).
Electrical stimulation combined with task-specific training (low evidence), high-volume constraint-induced movement therapy (moderate evidence), and strength training (low evidence) were the most effective interventions in improving upper limb motor function in individuals with a stroke. As the results were sensitive against a high risk of bias, likewise, these interventions should receive more attention in research and practice. Due to the heterogeneous use, electrical stimulation in combination with task-specific training should be further investigated in well-designed studies alongside other successful interventions (eg, constraint-induced movement therapy).
URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42021284064.
尽管有许多有效的运动干预措施可以治疗中风后的上肢运动障碍,但哪种方法最有效尚不清楚。本研究旨在探讨急性或亚急性中风患者上肢各种运动干预措施的比较效果。
本系统综述和网络荟萃分析检索了从数据库建立到 2021 年 9 月的 PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆 CENTRAL 和 Web of Science,以评估发病后 6 个月内的个体、主动上肢运动干预和任何类型的对照干预的随机对照试验。主要结局是上肢运动功能,次要结局是日常生活活动和社会参与,均在干预后和随访时进行评估。非特异性/多模式主动上肢治疗是标准比较剂。标准化均数差,即 Hedge's g,是效应量估计值。我们使用 R 包 netmeta 进行了基于 Frequentist 的网络荟萃分析,用于比较效果计算。主要分析是网络绘图以显示网络的几何形状和 P 分数以总结干预层次结构。结果来自直接的研究内证据比较和间接的研究间证据比较。Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 II 评估了所有偏倚风险领域。
本综述共涉及 145 项随机对照试验,涉及 6432 名参与者和 45 种不同的治疗类别。网络荟萃分析分析了 119 项随机对照试验,涉及 5553 名参与者和 41 种不同的治疗类别。电刺激联合任务特异性训练(标准化均数差,1.03[95%置信区间,0.51-1.55];<0.0001,P 分数=0.11)、高容量强制性运动疗法(0.86[0.4-1.32];=0.0003,P 分数=0.18)和力量训练(0.65[0.17-1.13];=0.01,P 分数=0.28)是最有效的干预措施(每个 k=107)。
电刺激联合任务特异性训练(低证据)、高容量强制性运动疗法(中证据)和力量训练(低证据)是改善中风患者上肢运动功能的最有效干预措施。由于结果对偏倚风险敏感,因此这些干预措施也应该在研究和实践中受到更多关注。由于使用存在异质性,电刺激联合任务特异性训练应在设计良好的研究中与其他成功的干预措施(例如强制性运动疗法)一起进一步进行调查。
网址:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/;唯一标识符:CRD42021284064。