Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25767912›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Interventions for improving community ambulation in individuals with stroke.

Ruth E Barclay, Ted J Stevenson, William Poluha, Jacquie Ripat, Cristabel Nett, Cynthia S Srikesavan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Motor imagery for gait rehabilitation after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions for improving community ambulation in individuals with stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Co-design of a walking activity intervention for stroke survivors.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth E BarclayDepartment of Physical Therapy, College of Rehabilitation Science, University of Manitoba, R106-771 McDermot Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3E 0T6.
Ted J Stevenson
William Poluha
Jacquie Ripat
Cristabel Nett
Cynthia S Srikesavan
University of Manitoba · CASt. Boniface Hospital · CA

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZB/4/784
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity ambulation refers to the ability of a person to walk in their own community, outside of their home and also indoors in private or public locations. Some people choose to walk for exercise or leisure and may walk with others as an important aspect of social functioning. Community ambulation is therefore an important skill for stroke survivors living in the community whose walking ability has been affected.

objectivesTo determine: (1) whether interventions improve community ambulation for stroke survivors, and (2) if any specific intervention method improves community ambulation more than other interventions. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2013), PubMed (1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (1980 to November 2013), CINAHL (1982 to November 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to November 2013), Scopus (1960 to November 2013), Web of Science (1900 to November 2013), SPORTDiscus (1975 to November 2013), and PEDro, CIRRIE and REHABDATA (November 2013). We also searched ongoing trials registers (November 2013) and reference lists, and performed a cited reference search. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection criteria included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs, studies in which participants are adult (aged 18 years or more) stroke survivors, and interventions that were aimed at improving community ambulation. We defined the primary outcome as participation; secondary outcomes included activity level outcomes related to gait and self-efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author independently screened titles. Two review authors screened abstracts and full text articles, with a third review author was available to resolve any disagreements. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. All outcomes were continuous. The analysis for the primary outcome used the generic inverse variance methods for meta-analysis, using the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standard error (SE) from the participation outcomes. Analyses for secondary outcomes all used SMD or mean difference (MD). We completed analyses for each outcome with all studies, and by type of community ambulation intervention (community or outdoor ambulation practice, virtual practice, and imagery practice). We considered trials for each outcome to be of low quality due to some trial design considerations, such as who knew what group the participants were in, and the number of people who dropped out of the studies. MAIN

resultsWe included five studies involving 266 participants (136 intervention; 130 control). All participants were adult stroke survivors, living in the community or a care home. Programmes to improve community ambulation consisted of walking practice in a variety of settings and environments in the community, or an indoor activity that mimicked community walking (including virtual reality or mental imagery). Three studies were funded by government agencies, and two had no funding.From two studies of 198 people there was low quality evidence for the effect of intervention on participation compared with control (SMD, 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.35 (using inverse variance). The CI for the effect of the intervention on gait speed was wide and does not exclude no difference (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.24; four studies, 98 participants, low quality evidence). We considered the quality of the evidence to be low for all the remaining outcomes in our review: Community Walk Test (MD -6.35, 95% CI -21.59 to 8.88); Walking Ability Questionnaire (MD 0.53, 95% CI -5.59 to 6.66); Six-Minute Walk Test (MD 39.62 metres, 95% CI -8.26 to 87.51) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.72). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of a high risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is currently insufficient evidence to establish the effect of community ambulation interventions or to support a change in clinical practice. More research is needed to determine if practicing outdoor or community walking will improve participation and community ambulation skills for stroke survivors living in the community.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationActivities of Daily LivingAdultEnvironment DesignGaitHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResidence CharacteristicsSelf EfficacyTime FactorsWalking

Identifiers

PMID25767912
PMCPMC6465042
OpenAlexW2142235686

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.