Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39468642›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2024

Effects of physical therapy modalities for motor function, functional recovery, and post-stroke complications in patients with severe stroke: a systematic review update.

Katrin Roesner, Bettina Scheffler, Martina Kaehler, Bianca Schmidt-Maciejewski, Tabea Boettger, Susanne Saal

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
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.

Katrin RoesnerDepartment of Physiotherapy, Pain and Exercise Research Luebeck (P.E.R.L.), Institute of Health Sciences, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562 Lübeck, Germany. katrin.roesner@uni-luebeck.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5700-3374
Bettina SchefflerDepartment of Therapy Science I, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Universitätsplatz 1, 01968 Senftenberg, Germany.
Martina KaehlerSchön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Dehnhaide 120, 22081 Hamburg, Germany.
Bianca Schmidt-MaciejewskiExecutive Department for Nursing Competencies, Wilhelmsburger Krankenhaus Hamburg Großsand, Groß-Sand 3, 21107 Hamburg, Germany.
Tabea BoettgerDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Institute of Health Sciences, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562 Lübeck, Germany.
Susanne SaalErnst-Abbe-Hochschule Jena-University of Applied Science, Carl-Zeiß-Promenade 2, 07745 Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical therapy interventions play a crucial role in the daily care of patients recovering from severe stroke. However, the efficacy of these interventions and associated modalities, including duration, intensity, and frequency, have not been fully elucidated. In 2020, a systematic review reported the beneficial effects of physical therapy for patients with severe stroke but did not assess therapeutic modalities. We aim to update the current evidence on the effects of physical therapy interventions and their modalities in relation to the recovery phase in people with severe stroke in a hospital or inpatient rehabilitation facility.

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and three other relevant databases between December 2018 and March 2021 and updated the search between April 2021 and March 2023. CLINICALTRIALS: gov and ICTRP for searching trial registries helped to identify ongoing RCTs since 2023. We included individual and cluster randomized controlled trials in the English and German languages that compared physical therapy interventions to similar or other interventions, usual care, or no intervention in a hospital or rehabilitation inpatient setting. We screened the studies from this recent review for eligibility criteria, especially according to the setting. Critical appraisal was performed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. The data were synthesized narratively.

resultsThe update identified 15 new studies, cumulating in a total of 30 studies (n = 2545 participants) meeting the eligibility criteria. These studies reported 54 outcomes and 20 physical therapy interventions. Two studies included participants during the hyperacute phase, 4 during the acute phase,18 during the early subacute phase, and 3 in the late subacute phase. Three studies started in the chronic phase. Summarised evidence has revealed an uncertain effect of physical therapy on patient outcomes (with moderate to low-quality evidence). Most studies showed a high risk of bias and did not reach the optimal sample size. Little was stated about the standard care and their therapy modalities. DISCUSSION: There is conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in patients with severe stroke. There is a need for additional high-quality studies that also systematically report therapeutic modalities from a multidimensional perspective in motor stroke recovery. Due to the high risk of bias and the generally small sample size of the included studies, the generalizability of the findings to large and heterogeneous volumes of outcome data is limited. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021244285.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesRecovery of FunctionStroke RehabilitationHumansStrokeDoseEffectsPhysical therapySevere strokeSystematic review update

Identifiers

PMID39468642
PMCPMC11520505

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.