4.3 Article

Does additional exercise improve trunk function recovery in stroke patients? A meta-analysis

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 205-213

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/NRE-141123

Keywords

Meta-analysis; stroke; rehabilitation; trunk exercise; functional recovery; mobility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: The restoration of trunk function following stroke is a key component of rehabilitation, however there is limited evidence of the efficacy of additional trunk training. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of trunk exercises added to conventional rehabilitation on functional outcomes. METHODS: Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published up to July 2012, evaluating the effect of the addition of trunk exercises to conventional rehabilitation on functional outcomes were identified in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Pubmed, PEDro, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Findings were summarised across studies as mean or standardised mean differences (MD or SMD) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 155 participants and a mean PEDro score of 6.5 (range 6 to 8) were included. Data from two to five studies were pooled in meta-analyses that showed a moderate, non-significant effect of additional trunk exercise on trunk performance, (SMD = 0.50; 95% CI -0.25, 1.25; P = 0.19); large effects on standing balance, SMD = 0.72 (95% CI -0.01, 1.45 P = 0.05); and walking ability, (SMD = 0.81; 95% CI 0.30, 1.33. P = 0.002) and a small, non-significant effect, MD = 10.03 (95% CI -15.70, 35.75. P = 0.44) on functional independence. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate evidence that the addition of specific trunk exercise to conventional early stroke rehabilitation significantly improve standing balance and mobility after stroke; however the evidence was weak for the effect of additional trunk exercise on trunk performance and in functional independence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available