DESIGN: This study was a two-arm within-participants trial with 4- and 12-wk follow-ups. Allocation ratio was 1:1, and pretraining and posttraining measurements were included. A total number of 25 healthy older adults were enrolled (mean = 63.32, SD = 4.44). Participants were randomly allocated into two conditions: (a) prospective memory training: participants underwent a multicomponent prospective memory training, and (b) control: participants were not contacted during the training phase. After the training phase was finished, participants crossed over to undergo the condition they did not experience before. The differences between pretraining and posttraining measures of prospective memory, activities of daily living, negative mood (depression), and anxiety were assessed. All changes in the measurements were analyzed using general linear method. This trial is registered at https://www.isrctn.com (#ISRCTN57600070).
RESULTS: Multicomponent prospective memory training program was significantly effective on both subjective and objective prospective memory performances among healthy older adults. Moreover, the training had significant positive effects on activities of daily living (independence) among participants. In addition, negative mood and anxiety levels were reduced after the training was finished.
CONCLUSIONS: This multicomponent prospective memory training improved prospective memory performance and activities of daily living and reduce negative mood (depression) and anxiety levels among healthy older adults.
DESIGN: A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the potential impact of blood flow restriction on patients with knee injuries. PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies from January 2000 until January 2020. The mean differences of the data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 software with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies involved 179 patients who received L-BFR, 96 patients who underwent high-load resistance training, and another 94 patients who underwent low-load resistance training. The analysis of pooled data showed that patients in both the L-BFR (standardized mean difference, 0.83 [0.53, 1.14], P < 0.01) and high-load resistance training (standardized mean difference, -0.09 [-0.43, 0.24], P = 0.58) groups experienced an increase in muscle strength after the training. In addition, pain score was significantly reduced in the L-BFR group compared with the other two groups (standardized mean difference, -0.61 [-1.19, -0.03], P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Muscle strength increased after L-BFR and high-load resistance training compared with low-load resistance training. Furthermore, pain score was significantly reduced after L-BFR. Hence, L-BFR is a potential intervention to be applied in rehabilitation of knee injuries.
DESIGN: We downloaded the CONSORT 2010 Statement and all endorsed and unofficial extensions reported on the CONSORT and EQUATOR websites. We extracted all statements on the selection, design, delivery or interpretation of data from comparison groups in clinical trials. We discussed preliminary findings during the Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Meeting in Kobe, then further by email before finalizing results.
RESULTS: We identified 24 standards reported across the CONSORT 2010 Statement and ten extensions. Overall, these standards address many, but not all, issues related to reporting of comparison groups in rehabilitation trials.
CONCLUSION: We recommend that additional standards be created for the selection of types of comparisons, choices around reporting of "usual care", reporting of intended "mechanisms of control", and reporting a rationale for the hypothesized superiority of one intervention over another when superiority trial design are used. Rehabilitation research would benefit from development of a specific checklist and guidelines to help researchers make best use of existing extensions.