Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2009;40:e98-e99
Published online before print February 26, 2009, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.519553
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
40/4/e98    most recent
STROKEAHA.108.519553v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by French, B.
Right arrow Articles by Watkins, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by French, B.
Right arrow Articles by Watkins, C. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Exercise/exercise testing/rehabilitation
Right arrow Rehabilitation, Stroke

(Stroke. 2009;40:e98.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.


Cochrane Corner

Repetitive Task Training for Improving Functional Ability After Stroke

Beverley French, PhD; Lois H. Thomas, PhD; Michael J. Leathley, PhD; Christopher J. Sutton, PhD, CStat; Joanna McAdam, BA; Anne Forster, PhD; Peter Langhorne, PhD; Christopher I.M. Price, PhD; Andrew Walker, PhD Caroline L. Watkins, PhD

From the Department of Nursing (B.F., L.H.T., M.J.L., J.M., C.L.W.), University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK; the Lancashire School of Health and Postgraduate Medicine (C.J.S.), University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK; the Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation (A.F.), University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; the Academic Section of Geriatric Medicine (P.L.) and Health Economics (A.W.), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; and Elderly Services (C.I.M.P.), Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, North Shields.

Correspondence to Beverley French, PhD, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Nursing, University of Central Lancashire, Brook 434, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK. E-mail bfrench1@uclan.ac.uk

Graeme J. Hankey MD, FRCP Section Editor


Key Words: exercise • functional recovery • rehabilitation • stroke care • therapy


An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.
 


*    Introduction
 
The inclusion of active practice of task-specific motor activities is popular in therapy approaches to stroke rehabilitation.


*    Objectives
 
The objective of this review was to determine if repetitive task training after stroke improves global, upper, or lower limb function and if treatment effects are influenced by the amount, type, or timing of practice.


*    Search Strategy
 
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (to October 2006); The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, SportDiscus, Science Citation Index, Index to Theses, ZETOC, PEDro, and OT Seeker (all to September 2006); and OT search (to March 2006). We also searched for unpublished/non-English language trials; combed conference proceedings and reference lists; requested information on bulletin boards; and contacted trial authors.


*    Selection Criteria
 
Selection criteria included randomized/quasirandomized trials in adults after stroke, of interventions that included an active motor sequence performed repetitively within a single training session, a clear functional goal, and a quantifiable level of practice.


*    Data Collection and Analysis
 
Two authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. Further information was obtained from study authors. Results from individual trials were combined using meta-analytic techniques appropriate to the data extracted and the level of between-trial heterogeneity.


*    Main Results
 
Fourteen trials with 17 intervention-control pairs and 659 participants were included. Primary outcomes showed that treatment effects were statistically significant for walking distance (see the Figure); walking speed (standardized mean difference, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.53); and sit-to-stand (standardized effect estimate, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.56). Treatment effects were of borderline statistical significance for functional ambulation (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, . . . [Full Text of this Article]