4.5 Article

ExStroke Pilot Trial of the effect of repeated instructions to improve physical activity after ischaemic stroke: a multinational randomised controlled clinical trial

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 339, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2810

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ludvig and Sara Elsass' Foundation
  2. Hede Nielsen Foundation
  3. Eva and Henry Fraenkel's Foundation
  4. Soren and Helene Hempel's Foundation
  5. King Christian X Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To investigate if repeated verbal instructions about physical activity to patients with ischaemic stroke could increase long term physical activity. Design Multicentre, multinational, randomised clinical trial with masked outcome assessment. Setting Stroke units in Denmark, China, Poland, and Estonia. Participants 314 patients with ischaemic stroke aged >= 40 years who were able to walk-157 ( mean age 69. 7 years) randomised to the intervention, 157 (mean age 69.4 years) in the control group. Interventions Patients randomised to the intervention were instructed in a detailed training programme before discharge and at five follow-up visits during 24 months. Control patients had follow-up visits with the same frequency but without instructions in physical activity. Main outcome measures Physical activity assessed with the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) at each visit. Secondary outcomes were clinical events. Results The estimated mean PASE scores were 69.1 in the intervention group and 64.0 in the control group (difference 5.0 (95% confidence interval -5.8 to 15.9), P=0.36. The intervention had no significant effect on mortality, recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, or falls and fractures. Conclusion Repeated encouragement and verbal instruction in being physically active did not lead to a significant increase in physical activity measured by the PASE score. More intensive strategies seem to be needed to promote physical activity after ischaemic stroke.

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

4.5
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