Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31465462›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Limited evidence of physical therapy on balance after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aurélien Hugues, Julie Di Marco, Shams Ribault, Hugo Ardaillon, Perrine Janiaud, Yufeng Xue, Jin Zhu, Jennifer Pires, Hooman Khademi, Laura Rubio and 10 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Sex Differences in the Long-Term Consequences of Stroke.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

20 authors.

Aurélien HuguesService de médecine physique et réadaptation, hôpital Henry Gabrielle, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Saint-Genis-Laval, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9190-2867
Julie Di MarcoAssistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Shams RibaultService de médecine physique et réadaptation, hôpital Henry Gabrielle, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Saint-Genis-Laval, France.
Hugo ArdaillonService de médecine physique et réadaptation, hôpital Henry Gabrielle, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Saint-Genis-Laval, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4113-2427
Perrine JaniaudUMR 5558 CNRS Lyon, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Yufeng XueUniversité de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université Saint-Étienne, HESPER EA 7425, Lyon, Saint-Etienne, France.
Jin ZhuDépartement de pharmacologie, Université Jiaotong de Shanghai, Shanghai, Chine.
Jennifer PiresRovisco Pais Rehabilitation Centre, Tocha, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5141-5853
Hooman KhademiInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Laura RubioCentro Lescer, Madrid, Spain.
Paloma Hernandez BernalRehaklinik Zihlschlach, Neurologisches Rehabilitationszentrum, Zihlschlacht, Switzerland.
Yeliz BaharHitit University Erol Olcok Training and Research Hospital, Corum, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2253-3767
Hadrien CharvatDivision of Prevention, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer, Tokyo, Japan.
Pawel SzulcINSERM UMR 1033, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France.
Carolina CiumasTranslational and Integrative Group in Epilepsy Research, INSERM U1028, CNRS UMR5292, Centre de Recherche en Neuroscience de Lyon, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon1, Lyon, France.
Heiwon WonUMR 5316 Litt&Arts, Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Michel CucheratUMR 5558 CNRS Lyon, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Isabelle BonanService de médecine physique et de réadaptation, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France.
François GueyffierUMR 5558 CNRS Lyon, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Gilles RodeService de médecine physique et réadaptation, hôpital Henry Gabrielle, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Saint-Genis-Laval, France.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke results in balance disorders and these directly affect autonomy and quality of life. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of physical therapy (PT) on balance and postural control after stroke.

methodsWe included all randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of PT on balance and postural control in adult patients after stroke without language restriction. Medline, Embase/Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, Pascal, and Francis databases were searched until January 2019. Primary outcomes were balance (Berg Balance scale and Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke) and postural control with postural deviation or stability measurement in sitting or standing static evaluation. A pair of independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses with subgroups (categories of PT, time post-stroke, and lesion location) and meta-regression (duration of PT) were conducted.

resultsA total of 145 studies (n = 5912) were selected from the 13,123 records identified. For balance, evidence was found in favor of the efficacy of functional task-training alone (standardized mean difference 0.39, 95% confidence interval [0.09; 0.68], heterogeneity I2 = 63%) or associated with musculoskeletal intervention and/or cardiopulmonary intervention (0.37, [0.19; 0.55], I2 = 48%), electrostimulation (0.91, [0.49; 1.34], I2 = 52%) immediately after intervention, compared to sham treatment or usual care (ST/UC). For postural deviation eyes open, assistive devices were more effective than no treatment (-0.21, [-0.37; -0.05], I2 = 0%) immediately after intervention; for postural stability eyes open, functional task-training and sensory interventions were more effective than ST/UC (0.97, [0.35; 1.59], I2 = 65% and 0.80, [0.46; 1.13], I2 = 37% respectively) immediately after intervention.

conclusionsFunctional task-training associated with musculoskeletal intervention and/or cardiopulmonary intervention and sensory interventions seem to be immediately effective in improving balance and postural stability, respectively. The heterogeneity of PT and the weak methodological quality of studies limited the interpretation and the confidence in findings.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesAgedHumansMiddle AgedPostural BalancePublication BiasRiskStroke

Identifiers

PMID31465462
PMCPMC6715189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.