OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess effects on learning outcomes of supplementation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for children with specific learning disorders.2. To determine whether adverse effects of supplementation of PUFAs are reported in these children.
SEARCH METHODS: In November 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing PUFAs with placebo or no treatment in children younger than 18 years with specific learning disabilities, as diagnosed in accordance with the fifth (or earlier) edition of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), or the 10th (or earlier) revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) or equivalent criteria. We included children with coexisting developmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (MLT and KHT) independently screened the titles and abstracts of articles identified by the search and eliminated all studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. We contacted study authors to ask for missing information and clarification, when needed. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Two small studies involving 116 children, mainly boys between 10 and 18 years of age, met the inclusion criteria. One study was conducted in a school setting, the other at a specialised clinic. Both studies used three months of a combination of omega-3 and omega-6 supplements as the intervention compared with placebo. Although both studies had generally low risk of bias, we judged the risk of reporting bias as unclear in one study, and as high in the other study. In addition, one of the studies was funded by industry and reported active company involvement in the study.None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes of reading, writing, spelling and mathematics scores, as assessed by standardised tests.Evidence of low quality indicates that supplementation of PUFAs did not increase the risk of gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 8.15; two studies, 116 children). Investigators reported no other adverse effects.Both studies reported attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related behaviour outcomes. We were unable to combine the results in a meta-analysis because one study reported findings as a continuous outcome, and the other as a dichotomous outcome. No other secondary outcomes were reported.We excluded one study because it used a cointervention (carnosine), and five other studies because they did not provide a robust diagnosis of a specific learning disorder. We identified one ongoing study and found three studies awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to permit any conclusions about the effect of PUFAs on the learning abilities of children with specific learning disorders. Well-designed RCTs with clearly defined populations of children with specific learning disorders who have been diagnosed by standardised diagnostic criteria are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of colesevelam for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched, among these The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey and Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (all up to January 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared colesevelam with or without other oral hypoglycaemic agents with a placebo or a control intervention with or without oral hypoglycaemic agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias of trials using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias.
MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs ranging from 8 to 26 weeks investigating 1450 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias of these trials was unclear or high. All RCTs compared the effects of colesevelam with or without other antidiabetic drug treatments with placebo only (one study) or combined with antidiabetic drug treatments. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in fasting blood glucose with a mean difference (MD) of -15 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI) -22 to - 8), P < 0.0001; 1075 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. There was also a reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in favour of colesevelam (MD -0.5% (95% CI -0.6 to -0.4), P < 0.00001; 1315 participants, 5 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. However, the single trial comparing colesevelam to placebo only (33 participants) did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the two arms - in fact, in both arms HbA1c increased. Colesevelam with add-on antidiabetic agents demonstrated a statistical significant reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol with a MD of -13 mg/dL (95% CI -17 to - 9), P < 0.00001; 886 participants, 4 trials, no trial with low risk of bias in all domains. Non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes were infrequently observed. No other serious adverse effects were reported. There was no documentation of complications of the disease, morbidity, mortality, health-related quality of life and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Colesevelam added on to antidiabetic agents showed significant effects on glycaemic control. However, there is a limited number of studies with the different colesevelam/antidiabetic agent combinations. More information on the benefit-risk ratio of colesevelam treatment is necessary to assess the long-term effects, particularly in the management of cardiovascular risks as well as the reduction in micro- and macrovascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, long-term data on health-related quality of life and all-cause mortality also need to be investigated.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review, but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.07, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, one study, 970 infants, moderate-quality evidence), and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, one study, 970 infants). None of the included trials reported data on the other primary outcomes, i.e. duration of partial or exclusive breastfeeding, or secondary outcomes: breastfeeding difficulties (mastitis, cracked nipples, breast engorgement); infant's health (dental malocclusion, otitis media, oral candidiasis; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)); maternal satisfaction and level of confidence in parenting. One study reported that avoidance of pacifiers had no effect on cry/fuss behavior at ages four, six, or nine weeks and also reported no effect on the risk of weaning before age three months, however the data were incomplete and so could not be included for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. Evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99) but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of co-bedding compared with separate (individual) care for stable preterm twins in the neonatal nursery in promoting growth and neurodevelopment and reducing short- and long-term morbidities, and to determine whether co-bedding is associated with significant adverse effects.As secondary objectives, we sought to evaluate effects of co-bedding via the following subgroup analyses: twin pairs with different weight ranges (very low birth weight [VLBW] < 1500 grams vs non-VLBW), twins with versus without significant growth discordance at birth, preterm versus borderline preterm twins, twins co-bedded in incubator versus cot at study entry, and twins randomized by twin pair versus neonatal unit.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We used keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (hosted by EBSCOHOST), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and references cited in our short-listed articles, up to February 29, 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with randomization by twin pair and/or by neonatal unit. We excluded cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of retrieved records. We contacted the authors of included studies to request important information missing from their published papers. We expressed our results using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) when appropriate, along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We adjusted the unit of analysis from individual infants to twin pairs by averaging measurements for each twin pair (continuous outcomes) or by counting outcomes as positive if developed by either twin (dichotomous outcomes).
MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria; however, only five studies provided data for analysis. Four of the six included studies were small and had significant limitations in design. As each study reported outcomes differently, data for most outcomes were effectively contributed by a single study. Study authors reported no differences between co-bedded twins and twins receiving separate care in terms of rate of weight gain (MD 0.20 grams/kg/d, 95% CI -1.60 to 2.00; one study; 18 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); apnea, bradycardia, and desaturation (A/B/D) episodes (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.05; one study; 62 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); episodes in co-regulated states (MD 0.96, 95% CI -3.44 to 5.36; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); suspected or proven infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.31; three studies; 65 pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); length of hospital stay (MD -4.90 days, 95% CI -35.23 to 25.43; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); and parental satisfaction measured on a scale of 0 to 55 (MD -0.38, 95% CI -4.49 to 3.73; one study; nine pairs of twins; evidence of moderate quality). Although co-bedded twins appeared to have lower pain scores 30 seconds after heel lance on a scale of 0 to 21 (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.23; two studies; 117 pairs of twins; I(2) = 75%; evidence of low quality), they had higher pain scores 90 seconds after the procedure (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.86; one study; 62 pairs of twins). Substantial heterogeneity in the outcome of infant pain response after heel prick at 30 seconds post procedure and conflicting results at 30 and 90 seconds post procedure precluded clear conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the benefits and harms of co-bedding for stable preterm twins was insufficient to permit recommendations for practice. Future studies must be adequately powered to detect clinically important differences in growth and neurodevelopment. Researchers should assess harms such as infection, along with medication errors and caregiver satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the optimal mode of delivery in women with, or carriers of, bleeding disorders.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register as well as trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search of the Group's Trials Registers: 16 February 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and all types of controlled clinical trials investigating the optimal mode of delivery in women with, or carriers of, any type of bleeding disorder during pregnancy were eligible for the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion MAIN RESULTS: No results from randomised controlled trials were found.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review did not identify any randomised controlled trials investigating the safest mode of delivery and associated maternal and foetal complications during delivery in women with, or carriers of, a bleeding disorder. In the absence of high quality evidence, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement and lower level evidence (e.g. from observational trials, case studies) to decide upon the optimal mode of delivery to ensure the safety of both mother and foetus.Given the ethical considerations, the rarity of the disorders and the low incidence of both maternal and foetal complications, future randomised controlled trials to find the optimal mode of delivery in this population are unlikely to be carried out. Other high quality controlled studies (such as risk allocation designs, sequential design, and parallel cohort design) are needed to investigate the risks and benefits of natural vaginal and caesarean section in this population or extrapolation from other clinical conditions that incur a haemorrhagic risk to the baby, such as platelet alloimmunisation.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) in infants and children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 1, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to July 2014), CINAHL (1981 to July 2014), LILACS (1982 to July 2014), Web of Science (1955 to July 2014) and reference lists of articles to July 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years old. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (six trials in high-income countries and four multicentre trials in high-, middle- and low-income countries) involving 16,707 children aged six months to six years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Nine trials (and all five trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment and nine trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for all trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (five trials, 4736 participants: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; NNTB 25, 95% CI 15 to 50).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses, settings, seasons or types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (two trials, 1223 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.00).There was no significant difference in the utilisation of health care for the one trial that provided sufficient information to be included. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (six trials, 10,199 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.05) and rhinorrhoea (six trials, 10,563 children: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16) but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Compared to the protocol, the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and changed the types of influenza vaccine from a secondary outcome to a subgroup analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction with the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in the light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials are limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. The quality of the evidence was high to moderate. Additional research is needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. The anticoagulant drugs included are UFH, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any combination of warfarin, UFH, LMWH and placebo in pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbooks for Systemic Reviews of Interventions for assessing the eligibility of studies identified by the search strategy. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in the review.We identified three potential studies; after assessing eligibility, we excluded all three as they did not meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. One study compared LMWH and UFH in pregnant women with previous thromboembolic events and, for most of these women, anticoagulants were used as thromboprophylaxis. There were only three women who had a thromboembolic event during the current pregnancy and it was unclear whether the anticoagulant was used as therapy or prophylaxis. We excluded one study because it included only women undergoing caesarean birth. The third study was not a randomised trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of anticoagulation for deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. Further studies are required.
OBJECTIVES: To ascertain whether therapy-based rehabilitation services can influence outcome one year or more after stroke.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the trials registers of the following Cochrane Review Groups: Stroke Group (last searched September 2007), Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (last searched October 2006) and Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (last searched October 2006). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2006), EMBASE (1980 to October 2006), CINAHL (1982 to October 2006), AMED (1985 to October 2006), PEDro (1952 to October 2006), British Nursing Index (1993 to October 2006), DARE (1994 to October 2006), HMIC (1979 to October 2006) and NHS EED (1991 to October 2006). We also searched dissertation databases and ongoing trials and research registers, scanned reference lists and contacted researchers and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of community-based stroke patients, in which at least 75% were recruited one year after stroke and received a therapy-based rehabilitation intervention that was compared with conventional care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data on a number of pre-specified outcomes. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who had deteriorated or were dependent in personal activities of daily living at the end of scheduled follow up.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified five trials of 487 participants that were eligible for the review. Overall, there was inconclusive evidence as to whether therapy-based rehabilitation intervention one year after stroke was able to influence any relevant patient or carer outcome. Trials varied in design, type of interventions provided, quality, and outcomes assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the dearth of evidence investigating long-term therapy-based rehabilitation interventions for patients with stroke.