Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19160268›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke.

Julie Bernhardt, Matthew Nt Thuy, Janice M Collier, Lynn A Legg

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Strategies to augment recovery after stroke.Current treatment options in neurology · 2012
    Article
  16. Physical activity in hospitalised stroke patients.Stroke research and treatment · 2012
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Rehabilitation of gait after stroke: a review towards a top-down approach.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2011
    Review
  19. Global impairment and therapeutic restoration of visual plasticity mechanisms after a localized cortical stroke.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2011
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Julie BernhardtVery Early Rehabilitation Stroke Research Program, National Stroke Research Institute, Level 1, Neurosciences Building, Austin Health, Repatriation Campus, 300 Waterdale Road, Heidelberg Heights, Victoria, Australia, 3081. j.bernhardt@unimelb.edu.au
Matthew Nt Thuy
Janice M Collier
Lynn A Legg

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVery early mobilisation is performed in some stroke units and recommended in acute stroke clinical guidelines. It is unclear whether very early mobilisation independently improves outcome after stroke.

objectivesTo determine the benefits and harms of very early mobilisation (commenced within 48 hours of stroke) compared with conventional care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2008). In addition, we searched 25 databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2007), EMBASE (1980 to September 2007), CINAHL (1982 to December 2006), and AMED (1985 to January 2007). We also searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched January 2007) and the Chinese medical database Wanfangdata (searched March 2007), handsearched journals, searched reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Unconfounded RCTs of acute stroke patients, comparing an intervention group that started out of bed mobilisation within 48 hours of stroke and aimed to reduce time to first mobilisation and/or increase the amount or frequency (or both) of mobilisation, with conventional care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author eliminated obviously irrelevant records; two review authors independently applied selection criteria to remaining studies. The primary outcome was death or poor outcome (dependency or institutionalisation) at the end of scheduled follow up. Secondary outcomes included mortality, dependency, institutionalisation, activities of daily living (ADLs), quality of life, time to walking, adverse events (e.g. deep vein thrombosis) and patient mood. MAIN

resultsOne study, involving 71 participants, was included. In this study the experimental group had earlier and more frequent mobilisation than the control group (median 18.1 hours post stroke for experimental group versus 30.8 hours control; 167 minutes of mobilisation (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 305) during admission for experimental group versus 69 (IQR 31 to 115) minutes control). Fewer patients who received early and frequent mobilisation were dead or disabled at three months, but this was not statistically significant and the confidence intervals were wide (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.79, P = 0.42). No significant difference on any secondary outcomes of interest were found. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of routine very early mobilisation after stroke, compared with conventional care. More research is required to determine the benefits and harms of very early mobilisation after stroke.

Indexed as

Early AmbulationStroke RehabilitationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID19160268
PMCPMC6465040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.