4.2 Article

Long-term Effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Poststroke Spasticity: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104591

关键词

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy; stroke; spasticity; long-term effect; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Medical Scientific Research Projects Foundation of Chongqing [2018MSXM043]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Yuzhong District of Chongqing [20180136]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the long-term effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on post-stroke spasticity.Data Sources: An electronic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) with hand search of relevant papers were performed on 20 June 2019. Review Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials of ESWT in stroke patients with spasticity. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) grade, and the second outcomes were the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM) of joint, the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) grade and adverse events. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: We extracted data from 8 randomized controlled trials (301 participants). At long-term follow-up, ESWT significantly reduced MAS (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = -.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -.53 to -.19, I-2 = 68%; P < .001) and VAS (WMD = -.94, 95% CI = -1.51 to -.37, I-2 =15%; P = .001), enhanced ROM (WMD = 5.97, 95% CI = 2.76 to 9.18, I-2 = 0%; P < .001) and FMA (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI = .29 to 2.24, I-2 = 96%; P = .01). Conclusions: ESWT showed long-term effects in relieving spasticity, while reducing pain, enhancing ROM and motor function in stroke patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据