METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL Plus for articles published from their date of inception to June 2021. RCTs investigating the efficacy or safety of VNS on post-stroke recovery were included. The outcomes were upper limb sensorimotor function, health-related quality of life, level of independence, cardiovascular effects, and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, while the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs (n = 236 subjects) met the eligibility criteria. Upper limb sensorimotor function, assessed by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), improved at day 1 (n = 4 RCTs; standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-1.66) and day 90 post-intervention (n = 3 RCTs; SMD 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.98; moderate certainty of evidence) but not at day 30 follow-up (n = 2 RCTs; SMD 1.54; 95% CI: -0.39 to 3.46). Clinically significant upper limb sensorimotor function recovery, as defined by ≥6 points increase in FMA-UE, was significantly higher at day 1 (n = 2 RCTs; risk ratio [RR] 2.01; 95% CI: 1.02-3.94) and day 90 post-intervention (n = 2 RCTs; RR 2.14; 95% CI: 1.32-3.45; moderate certainty of the evidence). The between-group effect sizes for upper limb sensorimotor function recovery was medium to large (Hedges' g 0.535-2.659). While the level of independence improved with VNS, its impact on health-related quality of life remains unclear as this was only studied in two trials with mixed results. Generally, adverse events reported were mild and self-limiting.
CONCLUSION: VNS may be an effective and safe adjunct to standard rehabilitation for post-stroke recovery; however, its clinical significance and long-term efficacy and safety remain unclear.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This research is a retrospective review on 201 electronic medical records of TBI patients referred for the multidisciplinary acute rehabilitation. Data on socio-demographic, TBI-related characteristics, rehabilitation details and functional outcomes at admission, discharge and 1-year post-TBI were analysed.
RESULTS: From the study population, males and Malay ethnicity were predominant and the Mean (SD) age was 42 ± 19 years. About two-thirds had severe TBI (63%), with concomitant fractures (70%), and 43% were first referred for rehabilitation during post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) state. 63% of them were directly transferred to the inpatient rehabilitation ward with an average length of stay of 18.8 ± 18.3 days. Only 25% of the patients received the full multidisciplinary team input and interventions during the acute inpatient rehabilitation program. The average hours of therapy received during the acute rehabilitation was 7 hours in a 5 day-week, translating to about 1.5 hours per day. In the first-year post-injury, most patients only received outpatient therapy less than once a month after the rehabilitation discharges. Significant improvements were noted in the Modified Barthel Index, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 6- Minute Walk Test and Westmead PTA scales from rehabilitation admission to discharge and at 1-year post-TBI (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: More than two-thirds of the TBI patients were transferred to the rehabilitation ward within the first three weeks of injury. Significant improvement in general function, cognition, physical mobility and endurance were reported at the rehabilitation discharge and 1 year. These improvements highlight the positive gains of acute rehabilitation interventions after TBI.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness of frequent higher dose very early mobilisation (VEM) after stroke.
DESIGN: We conducted a parallel-group, single-blind, prospective randomised controlled trial with blinded end-point assessment using a web-based computer-generated stratified randomisation.
SETTING: The trial took place in 56 acute stroke units in five countries.
PARTICIPANTS: We included adult patients with a first or recurrent stroke who met physiological inclusion criteria.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either usual stroke unit care (UC) or UC plus VEM commencing within 24 hours of stroke.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was good recovery [modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-2] 3 months after stroke. Secondary outcomes at 3 months were the mRS, time to achieve walking 50 m, serious adverse events, quality of life (QoL) and costs at 12 months. Tertiary outcomes included a dose-response analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Patients, outcome assessors and investigators involved in the trial were blinded to treatment allocation.
RESULTS: We recruited 2104 (UK, n = 610; Australasia, n = 1494) patients: 1054 allocated to VEM and 1050 to UC. Intervention protocol targets were achieved. Compared with UC, VEM patients mobilised 4.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1 to 5.7 hours; p
METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 65 stroke survivors with UL dysfunction (mean (SD) age = 64.83 (8.05) years, mean (SD) post-stroke duration 41.62 (35.24) months) who attended community-based rehabilitation program. Upper limb functionality was assessed using the UL items of Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SSQOL), the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale and the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT). The stroke survivors' performance in completing JTHFT using their affected dominant hand was compared with standard norms.
RESULTS: The three most affected UL daily living tasks were writing (64.7%, n=42), opening a jar (63.1%, n=41) and putting on socks (58.5%, n=38). As for IADL, the mean (SD) score of Lawton scale was 3.26 (2.41), with more than 50% unable to handle finance, do the laundry and prepare meals for themselves. Performances of stroke survivors were much slower than normal population in all tasks of JTHFT (p<0.05), with largest speed difference demonstrated for 'stacking objects' task (mean difference 43.24 secs (p=0.003) and 24.57 (p<0.001) in males and females, respectively.
CONCLUSION: UL functions are significantly impaired among stroke survivors despite undergoing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation professionals should prioritize highly problematic tasks when retraining UL for greater post-stroke functionality.
DESIGN: This is a multisite observational study.
SETTING: The study was conducted in four tertiary care hospitals in Australia.
SUBJECTS: A total of 225 participants, following cardiac surgery, were involved in the study.
INTERVENTION: Participants completed the original 13-item FDQ and other measures of physical function, pain and health-related quality of life.
METHOD: Item reduction was utilized to develop the shortened version. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), the smallest detectable change and Bland-Altman plots. The validity and responsiveness were evaluated using correlation. Anchor and distribution-based calculation was used to calculate the minimal clinical important difference (MCID).
RESULTS: Item reduction resulted in the creation of a 10-item shortened version of the questionnaire (FDQ-s). Within the cohort of cardiac surgery patient, the mean (SD) for the FDQ-s was 38.7 (19.61) at baseline; 15.5 (14.01) at four weeks and 7.9 (12.01) at three months. Validity: excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.90) and fair-to-excellent construct validity (>0.4). Reliability: internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α > 0.8). The FDQ-s had excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.89-0.92). Strong responsiveness overtime was demonstrated with large effect sizes (Cohen's d > 1.0). The MCID of the FDQ-s was calculated between 4 and 10 out of 100 (in cm).
CONCLUSION: The FDQ-s demonstrated robust psychometric properties as a measurement tool of physical function of the thoracic region following cardiac surgery.
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.
METHODS: Patients with American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) A and B were included in an open-label cohort study. Each received a course of MLC601/MLC901 for 6 months in addition to standard care and rehabilitation. Key endpoints were safety, AIS grade and motor scores at month 6 (M6).
RESULTS: Among 30 patients included (mean age 42.2 ± 17.6 years, 24 men), 20 patients had AIS A while 10 patients had AIS B at baseline. Ten patients experienced 14 adverse events including one serious adverse event and six deaths, none were considered treatment-related. AIS improved in 25% of AIS A and 50% of AIS B. Improvement in ASIA motor score was seen most with cervical injury (median change from baseline 26.5, IQR: 6-55). These findings appear to be better than reported rates of spontaneous recovery for SCI AIS A and B.
CONCLUSION: MLC601/MLC901 is safe and may have a role in the treatment of patients with SCI. A controlled trial is justified.