Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30321906›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke.

Peter Langhorne, Janice M Collier, Patricia J Bate, Matthew Nt Thuy, Julie Bernhardt

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 50 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

NCT04488692 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Two Models of an Early Intervention Program on Functional Recovery at Three Months to Acute Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorChung Shan Medical UniversityRan2020 to 2022Enrolled142ConditionsAcute StrokeArmsEarly intervention (Mobility functional training), Sham intervention
NCT06867081 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of a Customized Digital Platform to Increase Coordination of Care and Uptake of Evidence-based Practices: a Protocol for a Stepped-wedge Cluster Randomized Trial in Quebec

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater MontrealRan2025 to 2029Enrolled962ConditionsAquired Brain Injury, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Stroke, Cardiovascular DiseasesArmsThe intervention will be the BRILLIANT Platform, an online platform which provides five Modules aimed at increasing coordination of care and direct rehabilitation time
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. From evidence to action: Italian recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of spatial neglect in stroke patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Impact of Pneumonia on Rehabilitation Outcomes: A Large Observational Study.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter LanghorneAcademic Section of Geriatric Medicine, ICAMS, University of Glasgow, Level 2, New Lister Building, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK, G31 2ER.
Janice M Collier
Patricia J Bate
Matthew Nt Thuy
Julie Bernhardt

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ETM/417Department of Health 12/01/16
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVery early mobilisation (VEM) is performed in some stroke units and recommended in some acute stroke clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear whether very early mobilisation independently improves outcome after stroke.

objectivesTo determine whether very early mobilisation (started as soon as possible, and no later than 48 hours after onset of symptoms) in people with acute stroke improves recovery (primarily the proportion of independent survivors) compared with usual care. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 31 July 2017). We also systematically searched 19 electronic databases including; CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7 in the Cochrane Library (searched July 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to August 2017), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to August 2017) , PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to August 2017), AMED Ovid (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), SPORTDiscus EBSCO (1830 to August 2017). We searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched December 2016), the Chinese medical database, Wanfangdata (searched to November 2016), and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with acute stroke, comparing an intervention group that started out-of-bed mobilisation within 48 hours of stroke, and aimed to reduce time-to-first mobilisation, with or without an increase in the amount or frequency (or both) of mobilisation activities, with usual care, where time-to-first mobilisation was commenced later. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was death or poor outcome (dependency or institutionalisation) at the end of scheduled follow-up. Secondary outcomes included death, dependency, institutionalisation, activities of daily living (ADL), extended ADL, quality of life, walking ability, complications (e.g. deep vein thrombosis), patient mood, and length of hospital stay. We also analysed outcomes at three-month follow-up. MAIN

resultsWe included nine RCTs with 2958 participants; one trial provided most of the information (2104 participants). The median (range) delay to starting mobilisation after stroke onset was 18.5 (13.1 to 43) hours in the VEM group and 33.3 (22.5 to 71.5) hours in the usual care group. The median difference within trials was 12.7 (4 to 45.6) hours. Other differences in intervention varied between trials; in five trials, the VEM group were also reported to have received more time in therapy, or more mobilisation activity.Primary outcome data were available for 2542 of 2618 (97.1%) participants randomized and followed up for a median of three months. VEM probably led to similar or slightly more deaths and participants who had a poor outcome, compared with delayed mobilisation (51% versus 49%; odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.26; P = 0.36; 8 trials; moderate-quality evidence). Death occurred in 7% of participants who received delayed mobilisation, and 8.5% of participants who received VEM (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.70; P = 0.11; 8 trials, 2570 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and the effects on experiencing any complication were unclear (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; P = 0.18; 7 trials, 2778 participants; low-quality evidence). Analysis using outcomes collected only at three-month follow-up did not alter the conclusions.The mean ADL score (measured at end of follow-up, with the 20-point Barthel Index) was higher in those who received VEM compared with the usual care group (mean difference (MD) 1.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.13, P = 0.001; 8 trials, 9 comparisons, 2630/2904 participants (90.6%); low-quality evidence), but there was substantial heterogeneity (93%). Effect sizes were smaller for outcomes collected at three-month follow-up, rather than later.The mean length of stay was shorter in those who received VEM compared with the usual care group (MD -1.44, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.60, P = 0.0008; 8 trials, 2532/2618 participants (96.7%); low-quality evidence). Confidence in the answer was limited by the variable definitions of length of stay. The other secondary outcome analyses (institutionalisation, extended activities of daily living, quality of life, walking ability, patient mood) were limited by lack of data.Sensitivity analyses by trial quality: none of the outcome conclusions were altered if we restricted analyses to trials with the lowest risk of bias (based on method of randomization, allocation concealment, completeness of follow-up, and blinding of final assessment), or information about the amount of mobilisation.Sensitivity analysis by intervention characteristics: analyses restricted to trials where the mean VEM time-to-first mobilisation was less than 24 hours, showed an odds of death of 1.35 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.83; P = 0.06; I² = 25%; 5 trials). Analyses restricted to the trials that clearly reported a more prolonged out-of-bed activity showed a similar primary outcome (OR 1.14; 0.96 to 1.35; P = 0.13; I² = 28%; 5 trials), and odds of death (OR 1.27; 0.93 to 1.73; P = 0.13; I² = 0%; 4 trials) to the main analysis.Exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA): we were unable to analyze by the amount of therapy, but low-quality evidence indicated that time-to-first mobilisation at around 24 hours was associated with the lowest odds of death or poor outcome, compared with earlier or later mobilisation. AUTHORS'

conclusionsVEM, which usually involved first mobilisation within 24 hours of stroke onset, did not increase the number of people who survived or made a good recovery after their stroke. VEM may have reduced the length of stay in hospital by about one day, but this was based on low-quality evidence. Based on the potential hazards reported in the single largest RCT, the sensitivity analysis of trials commencing mobilisation within 24 hours, and the NMA, there was concern that VEM commencing within 24 hours may carry an increased risk, at least in some people with stroke. Given the uncertainty around these effect estimates, more detailed research is still required.

Indexed as

Early AmbulationStroke RehabilitationActivities of Daily LivingAdultHumansLength of StayQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID30321906
PMCPMC6517132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.