Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke

  1. Alex Pollock1,*,
  2. Gillian Baer2,
  3. Pauline Campbell1,
  4. Pei Ling Choo3,
  5. Anne Forster4,
  6. Jacqui Morris5,
  7. Valerie M Pomeroy6,
  8. Peter Langhorne7

Editorial Group: Cochrane Stroke Group

Published Online: 22 APR 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 6 FEB 2014

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3


How to Cite

Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, Choo PL, Forster A, Morris J, Pomeroy VM, Langhorne P. Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001920. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Glasgow Caledonian University, Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow, UK

  2. 2

    Queen Margaret University, Department of Physiotherapy, Edinburgh, UK

  3. 3

    Glasgow Caledonian University, School of Health & Life Sciences, Glasgow, UK

  4. 4

    Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust/University of Leeds, Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford, UK

  5. 5

    University of Dundee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Dundee, UK

  6. 6

    University of East Anglia, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Norwich, UK

  7. 7

    University of Glasgow, Academic Section of Geriatric Medicine, Glasgow, UK

*Alex Pollock, Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Buchanan House, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK. alex.pollock@gcu.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 22 APR 2014

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. The figure summarises the process undertaken by the stakeholder group, which met on three occasions (green circles). The nominal group technique was used to achieve all decisions. The blue circles represent the 'preparation phase,' which included drafting role descriptors for the SG; obtaining local University ethics and recruiting the SG and data extraction exercise of the sample of Chinese studies (n = 10) that had previously been identified in the 2007 version of this review. Purple circles represent the months dedicated to undertaking the systematic review.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcomes, Outcome 1 Independence in ADL scales.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcomes, Outcome 2 Motor function scales.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcomes, Outcome 3 Balance (Berg Balance Scale).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcomes, Outcome 4 Gait velocity.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcomes, Outcome 5 Length of stay.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Intervention versus usual care or attention control: immediate outcomes, Outcome 1 Independence in ADL scales.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Intervention versus usual care or attention control: immediate outcomes, Outcome 2 Motor function scales.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Intervention versus usual care or attention control: immediate outcomes, Outcome 3 Balance (Berg Balance Scale).
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Intervention versus usual care or attention control: immediate outcomes, Outcome 4 Gait velocity.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Intervention versus usual care or attention control: immediate outcomes, Outcome 5 Length of stay.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes, Outcome 1 Independence in ADL scales.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes, Outcome 2 Motor function scales.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes, Outcome 3 Balance (Berg Balance Scale).
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes, Outcome 4 Gait velocity.
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes, Outcome 5 Length of stay.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Intervention versus no treatment: persisting outcomes, Outcome 1 Independence in ADL scales.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Intervention versus no treatment: persisting outcomes, Outcome 2 Motor function scales.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Intervention versus no treatment: persisting outcomes, Outcome 3 Balance (Berg Balance Scale).
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Intervention versus no treatment: persisting outcomes, Outcome 4 Gait velocity.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Intervention versus usual care or attention control: persisting outcomes, Outcome 2 Motor function scales.
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Intervention versus usual care or attention control: persisting outcomes, Outcome 4 Gait velocity.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 One active intervention versus another active intervention: persisting outcomes, Outcome 1 Independence in ADL scales.
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 One active intervention versus another active intervention: persisting outcomes, Outcome 4 Gait velocity.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 1 Time after stroke.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 2 Study geographical location.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 3 Dose of intervention.
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 4 Provider of intervention.
[Analysis 7.5]
Analysis 7.5. Comparison 7 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 5 Treatment components included.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 1 Time after stroke.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 2 Study geographical location.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 3 Dose of intervention.
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 4 Provider of intervention.
[Analysis 8.5]
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: independence in ADL, Outcome 5 Treatment components included.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 1 Time after stroke.
[Analysis 9.2]
Analysis 9.2. Comparison 9 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 2 Study geographical location.
[Analysis 9.3]
Analysis 9.3. Comparison 9 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 3 Dose of intervention.
[Analysis 9.4]
Analysis 9.4. Comparison 9 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 4 Provider of intervention.
[Analysis 9.5]
Analysis 9.5. Comparison 9 Subgroups. Intervention versus no treatment: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 5 Treatment components included.
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 1 Time after stroke.
[Analysis 10.2]
Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 2 Study geographical location.
[Analysis 10.3]
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 3 Dose of intervention.
[Analysis 10.4]
Analysis 10.4. Comparison 10 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 4 Provider of intervention.
[Analysis 10.5]
Analysis 10.5. Comparison 10 Subgroups. Intervention versus attention control or usual care: immediate outcome: motor function, Outcome 5 Treatment components included.
[Analysis 11.1]
Analysis 11.1. Comparison 11 Subgroups. One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes: independence in ADL, Outcome 1 Functional task training components.
[Analysis 11.2]
Analysis 11.2. Comparison 11 Subgroups. One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes: independence in ADL, Outcome 2 Neurophysiological components.
[Analysis 11.3]
Analysis 11.3. Comparison 11 Subgroups. One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes: independence in ADL, Outcome 3 Musculoskeletal components.
[Analysis 12.1]
Analysis 12.1. Comparison 12 Subgroups. One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes: motor function, Outcome 1 Functional task training components.
[Analysis 12.2]
Analysis 12.2. Comparison 12 Subgroups. One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes: motor function, Outcome 2 Neurophysiological components.
[Analysis 12.3]
Analysis 12.3. Comparison 12 Subgroups. One active intervention versus another active intervention: immediate outcomes: motor function, Outcome 3 Musculoskeletal components.