ArticlePloS one2023
Optimal resistance exercise training parameters for stroke recovery: A protocol for a systematic review.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke impacts nearly 14 million people annually. Muscle strength and physical function are often affected by stroke and important determinants of stroke recovery. Resistance exercise training (RT) has been shown to improve muscle strength, but RT prescriptions may be suboptimal for other aspects of stroke recovery. Parameters such as frequency, intensity, type, and duration may influence the effectiveness of RT interventions but have not been systematically evaluated.
objectives1) To determine the effects of RT on stroke recovery, and 2) to examine the influence of RT parameters on intervention effects. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of RT will be eligible for this systematic review if they: 1) included only adults with stroke or transient ischemic attack, 2) compared RT to no exercise or usual care, and 3) did not apply a co-intervention. STUDY SELECTION: Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, AMED, PsychINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) and 2 clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) will be searched from inception. Two independent pairs of authors will compare titles, abstracts, and full-text reports against the eligibility criteria. Conflicts will be resolved by consensus or third author.
main outcome measuresThe construct of interest is stroke recovery. An advisory group of clinicians, researchers, and partners with lived experience of stroke will be consulted to determine specific outcome measures of interest, and to rank their relative importance. We expect to include measures of physical function, strength, cognition, and quality of life. Random-effects meta-analyses will be used to pool results for each outcome across studies, and RT parameters (frequency, intensity, type, and duration) will be used as covariates in meta-regression analyses.
conclusionThe results of this review will inform the optimal RT prescription parameters for promoting stroke recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.