Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36252104›Full record

ArticleStroke2022

Network Meta-Analysis of Non-Conventional Therapies for Improving Upper Limb Motor Impairment Poststroke.

Marcus Saikaley, Griffin Pauli, Hao Sun, Julisa Rodriguez Serra, Jerome Iruthayarajah, Robert Teasell

Open access · hybridAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcus SaikaleyParkwood Institute Research (M.S., G.P., H.S., J.R.S., J.I., R.T.), Parkwood Institute, London, ON.ORCID 0000-0003-1284-6030
Griffin PauliParkwood Institute Research (M.S., G.P., H.S., J.R.S., J.I., R.T.), Parkwood Institute, London, ON.
Hao SunParkwood Institute Research (M.S., G.P., H.S., J.R.S., J.I., R.T.), Parkwood Institute, London, ON.
Julisa Rodriguez SerraParkwood Institute Research (M.S., G.P., H.S., J.R.S., J.I., R.T.), Parkwood Institute, London, ON.
Jerome IruthayarajahParkwood Institute Research (M.S., G.P., H.S., J.R.S., J.I., R.T.), Parkwood Institute, London, ON.
Robert TeasellParkwood Institute Research (M.S., G.P., H.S., J.R.S., J.I., R.T.), Parkwood Institute, London, ON.
Parkwood Institute · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNetwork meta-analysis is a method that can estimate relative efficacy between treatments that may not have been compared directly within the literature. The purpose of this study is to present a network meta-analysis of non-conventional interventions to improve upper extremity motor impairment after stroke.

methodsA literature search was conducted in 5 databases from their inception until April 1, 2021. Terms were used to narrow down articles related to stroke, the upper extremity, and interventional therapies. Randomized controlled trials written in English were eligible if; 50% poststroke patients; ≥18 years old; applied an intervention for the upper extremity, and/or used the Fugl-Meyer upper extremity scale as an outcome measure; the intervention had ≥3 randomized controlled trials with comparisons against a conventional care group; conventional care groups were dose matched for therapy time. A Bayesian network meta-analysis approach was taken to estimate mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.

resultsOne hundred seventy-six randomized controlled trials containing 6781 participants examining 20 non-conventional interventions were identified for inclusion within the final model. Eight of the identified interventions proved significantly better than conventional care, with modified constraint induced movement therapy (MD, 6.7 [95% CI, 4.3-8.9]), high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (MD, 5.4 [95% CI, 1.9-8.9]), mental imagery (MD, 5.4 [95% CI, 1.8-8.9]), bilateral arm training (MD, 5.2 [95% CI, 2.2-8.1]), and intermittent theta-burst stimulation (MD, 5.1 [95% CI, 0.62-9.5]) occupying the top 5 spots according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

conclusionsOverall, it would seem that modified constraint induced movement therapy has the greatest probability of being the most effective intervention, with high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, mental imagery, and bilateral arm training all having similar probabilities of occupying the next spot in the rankings. We think this analysis can provide a guide for where future resources and clinical trials should be directed, and where a clinician may begin when considering alternative therapeutic interventions.

Indexed as

Motor DisordersStrokeStroke RehabilitationAdolescentBayes TheoremHumansRecovery of FunctionUpper Extremityarmmotor impairmentnetwork meta-analysistranscranial magnetic stimulationupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID36252104
PMCPMC9698094
OpenAlexW4306167584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.