Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Physical rehabilitation for older people in long-term care

  1. Tom Crocker1,
  2. Anne Forster1,2,*,
  3. John Young1,2,
  4. Lesley Brown1,
  5. Seline Ozer1,
  6. Jane Smith1,
  7. John Green1,
  8. Jo Hardy1,
  9. Eileen Burns3,
  10. Elizabeth Glidewell4,
  11. Darren C Greenwood5

Editorial Group: Cochrane Stroke Group

Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 28 SEP 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004294.pub3


How to Cite

Crocker T, Forster A, Young J, Brown L, Ozer S, Smith J, Green J, Hardy J, Burns E, Glidewell E, Greenwood DC. Physical rehabilitation for older people in long-term care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004294. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004294.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

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

  2. 2

    Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford, UK

  3. 3

    Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Elderly Care, Leeds, UK

  4. 4

    Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds, UK

  5. 5

    University of Leeds, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Leeds, UK

*Anne Forster, Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Temple Bank House, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK. a.forster@leeds.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Review update flow diagram
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. 'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item presented as percentages across all included studies
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Rehabilitation versus control, outcome: 1.1 Barthel Index.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Rehabilitation versus control, outcome: 1.4 TUG test
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Rehabilitation versus control, outcome: 1.5 Walking speed
[Figure 6]
Figure 6. Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Rehabilitation versus control, outcome: 1.6 Death
[Figure 7]
Figure 7. '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 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 1 Barthel Index.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 2 Functional Independence Measure (FIM).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 3 Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 4 Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 5 Walking speed.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 6 Death.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 7 Barthel Index (by risk of bias).
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 8 Barthel Index (by duration of intervention).
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 9 Barthel Index (by mode of delivery).
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 10 Barthel Index (by baseline Barthel Index score).
[Analysis 1.11]
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 11 Barthel Index (by age).
[Analysis 1.12]
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 12 Barthel Index (by gender).
[Analysis 1.13]
Analysis 1.13. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 13 Functional Independence Measure (by risk of bias).
[Analysis 1.14]
Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 14 Functional Independence Measure (by duration of intervention).
[Analysis 1.15]
Analysis 1.15. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 15 Functional Independence Measure (by mode of delivery).
[Analysis 1.16]
Analysis 1.16. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 16 Functional Independence Measure (by baseline FIM score).
[Analysis 1.17]
Analysis 1.17. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 17 Functional Independence Measure (by age).
[Analysis 1.18]
Analysis 1.18. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 18 Functional Independence Measure (by gender).
[Analysis 1.19]
Analysis 1.19. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 19 Rivermead Mobility Index (by risk of bias).
[Analysis 1.20]
Analysis 1.20. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 20 Rivermead Mobility Index (by duration of intervention).
[Analysis 1.21]
Analysis 1.21. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 21 Rivermead Mobility Index (by mode of delivery).
[Analysis 1.22]
Analysis 1.22. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 22 Rivermead Mobility Index (by baseline RMI score).
[Analysis 1.23]
Analysis 1.23. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 23 Rivermead Mobility Index (by age).
[Analysis 1.24]
Analysis 1.24. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 24 Rivermead Mobility Index (by gender).
[Analysis 1.25]
Analysis 1.25. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 25 TUG Test (by risk of bias).
[Analysis 1.26]
Analysis 1.26. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 26 TUG Test (by duration of intervention).
[Analysis 1.27]
Analysis 1.27. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 27 TUG Test (by mode of delivery).
[Analysis 1.28]
Analysis 1.28. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 28 TUG Test (by baseline TUG score).
[Analysis 1.29]
Analysis 1.29. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 29 TUG Test (by age).
[Analysis 1.30]
Analysis 1.30. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 30 TUG Test (by gender).
[Analysis 1.31]
Analysis 1.31. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 31 Walking speed (by risk of bias).
[Analysis 1.32]
Analysis 1.32. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 32 Walking speed (by duration of intervention).
[Analysis 1.33]
Analysis 1.33. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 33 Walking speed (by mode of delivery).
[Analysis 1.34]
Analysis 1.34. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 34 Walking speed (by baseline walking speed).
[Analysis 1.35]
Analysis 1.35. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 35 Walking speed (by age).
[Analysis 1.36]
Analysis 1.36. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 36 Walking speed (by gender).
[Analysis 1.37]
Analysis 1.37. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 37 Walking speed (by distance walked).
[Analysis 1.38]
Analysis 1.38. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 38 Death (by risk of bias).
[Analysis 1.39]
Analysis 1.39. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 39 Death (by duration of intervention).
[Analysis 1.40]
Analysis 1.40. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 40 Death (by mode of delivery).
[Analysis 1.41]
Analysis 1.41. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 41 Death (by age).
[Analysis 1.42]
Analysis 1.42. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 42 Death (by gender).
[Analysis 1.43]
Analysis 1.43. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 43 Sensitivity analysis: Barthel Index (fixed-effect).
[Analysis 1.44]
Analysis 1.44. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 44 Sensitivity analysis: Barthel Index (cluster trials).
[Analysis 1.45]
Analysis 1.45. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 45 Sensitivity analysis: Functional Independence Measure (fixed-effect).
[Analysis 1.46]
Analysis 1.46. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 46 Sensitivity analysis: Rivermead Mobility Index (fixed-effect).
[Analysis 1.47]
Analysis 1.47. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 47 Sensitivity analysis: TUG Test (fixed-effect).
[Analysis 1.48]
Analysis 1.48. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 48 Sensitivity anlaysis: TUG Test (cluster trials).
[Analysis 1.49]
Analysis 1.49. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 49 Sensitivity analysis: TUG Test (re-including Christofoletti 2008).
[Analysis 1.50]
Analysis 1.50. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 50 Sensitivity analysis: Walking speed (fixed-effect).
[Analysis 1.51]
Analysis 1.51. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 51 Sensitivity analysis: Walking speed (cluster trials).
[Analysis 1.52]
Analysis 1.52. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 52 Sensitivity analysis: Death (random-effects: odds ratio).
[Analysis 1.53]
Analysis 1.53. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 53 Sensitivity analysis: Death (random-effects: risk difference).
[Analysis 1.54]
Analysis 1.54. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 54 Sensitivity analysis: Death (fixed-effect).
[Analysis 1.55]
Analysis 1.55. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 55 Sensitivity analysis: Death (fixed-effect: Peto odds ratio).
[Analysis 1.56]
Analysis 1.56. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 56 Sensitivity analysis: Death (cluster trials).
[Analysis 1.57]
Analysis 1.57. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 57 Sensitivity analysis: Death (including Brittle 2009).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Rehabilitation (experimental) versus rehabilitation (control), Outcome 1 TUG Test.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Rehabilitation (experimental) versus rehabilitation (control), Outcome 2 Death.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Rehabilitation (experimental) versus rehabilitation (control), Outcome 3 Sensitivity analysis: TUG Test (fixed-effect).