Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40990154›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2025

Resistance training for people with stroke.

David H Saunders, Graham Baker, Joshua D Cheyne, Kay Cooper, Natalie A Fini, Alixe Hm Kilgour, Paul A Swinton, Gavin Williams, Gillian E Mead

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Combined cardiorespiratory and resistance training for people with stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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

9 authors.

David H SaundersPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre (PAHRC), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Graham BakerPhysical Activity for Health Research Centre (PAHRC), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Joshua D CheyneLibrary Services, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.
Kay CooperSchool of Health, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9958-2511
Natalie A FiniPhysiotherapy Department, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5474-6404
Alixe Hm KilgourAgeing and Health Research Group, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1270-821X
Paul A SwintonSchool of Health, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9663-0696
Gavin WilliamsDepartment of Physiotherapy, Epworth Healthcare and The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2758-7473
Gillian E MeadCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7494-2023

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleLevels of physical activity and physical fitness are low after stroke. Low muscle strength is common, particularly on the affected side, and is associated with post-stroke disability. Resistance training exercise interventions could increase muscle strength, improve physical function and reduce disability, and may benefit secondary prevention.

objectivesThe primary objective of this review is to determine whether resistance training after stroke has any effects on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH

methodsIn January 2024, we searched nine databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, WoS, PEDro and DORIS) and two trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP), together with reference checking, citation tracking and contact with experts in the field, to identify eligible studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing resistance training interventions with comparators of either usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcome domains were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking and indices of physical function. We assessed outcomes at the end of intervention and at the end of the longest follow-up. Our other important outcome domains were indices of quality of life, mood, cognition and fatigue. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool to assess bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS

methodsWhere possible, we synthesised results for each outcome at the end of the intervention and at the end of follow-up using random-effects meta-analyses on arm-level data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD), and 95% CI. For outcomes not analysed using meta-analysis, we followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included a total of 27 studies with 1004 participants, with an average age of 62 years. Most studies recruited ambulatory participants (18/27) during the sub-acute (10/27) and chronic (16/27) stages of recovery living in high-income countries (18/27). Most study interventions lacked a balanced dose of control exposure (17/27). A follow-up period was included in 8/27 studies (mean 9.9 months; range 2 to 48 months). Interventions typically involved exercise machines (16/27) or bodyweight exercises (10/27) delivered two to three days per week for between two and 12 weeks, which progressed on the basis of intensity and/or volume. SYNTHESIS OF

resultsResistance training does not increase (or decrease) deaths at the end of intervention (risk difference RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 24 studies, 880 participants; high-certainty) or follow-up (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 202 participants; high-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of resistance training on indices of disability at the end of intervention (standardised mean difference SMD 0.55, 95% CI -0.24 to 1.33; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). There is a moderate-sized effect (SMD > 0.5) but there was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may have little or no effect on the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (all-cause) at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31; 1 study, 10 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training may reduce systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.42 to 24.42; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty). There was only one small study. No data were available at follow-up. Resistance training probably improves multiple indices of musculoskeletal fitness at the end of intervention (overall moderate-certainty). Improvements in muscle strength occurred in the legs on the affected (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) and least affected sides (large effect SMD > 0.8), and both arms (moderate effect SMD > 0.5) although the evidence is less certain on the affected arm. Overall, there were very few data at the end of follow-up and overall effects were very uncertain. Resistance training probably results in little or no beneficial effect on comfortable walking speed (m/sec) at the end of intervention (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.07; I² = 43%; 6 studies, 212 participants; moderate-certainty) or the end of follow-up (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). Resistance training may improve indices of balance slightly (small effect SMD > 0.2) at the end of intervention (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.80; I² = 24%; 5 studies, 190 participants; low-certainty) and end of follow-up (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.85; 1 study, 93 participants; low-certainty). There was no evidence concerning adverse effects attributable to participating in resistance training interventions. Adherence was good, although there were some dropouts attributable to the resistance training intervention. Overall, evidence certainty was limited by imprecision and risk of bias concerns. AUTHORS'

conclusionsResistance training does not affect mortality at the end of intervention or after follow-up. We could not draw conclusions about resistance training effects on disability, secondary prevention of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events or the risk of these because the data were inadequate. Resistance training probably increases muscle strength in the arms and legs, particularly on the unaffected side at the end of intervention. There was little or no effect on comfortable walking speed, possibly because the interventions were insufficiently task-related to walking. However, there may be a small improvement in balance which persists at follow-up. Resistance training interventions were adhered to without serious adverse events or adverse effects, but may not be acceptable to everyone. Inadequate data at follow-up prevented conclusions about retention of benefits. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, the benefits and long-term effects.

fundingThis Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol [and previous versions] available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316 [DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub6, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub5, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub4, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub3, DOI/10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub2].

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingStrokeStroke RehabilitationAgedBiasHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthPhysical FitnessQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsWalking

Identifiers

PMID40990154
PMCPMC12458981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.