Austin Health

Title
Timing and Dose of Upper Limb Motor Intervention After Stroke: A Systematic Review.
Publication Date
2021-11
Author(s)
Hayward, Kathryn S
Kramer, Sharon F
Dalton, Emily J
Hughes, Gemma R
Brodtmann, Amy
Churilov, Leonid
Cloud, Geoffrey
Corbett, Dale
Jolliffe, Laura
Kaffenberger, Tina
Rethnam, Venesha
Thijs, Vincent N
Ward, Nick
Lannin, Natasha
Bernhardt, Julie
Subject
intensity
stroke rehabilitation
systematic review
time
upper extremity
Type of document
Journal Article
OrcId
0000-0001-5240-3264
0000-0003-2795-6259
0000-0003-3920-8530
0000-0002-3077-4256
0000-0001-9466-2862
0000-0002-9807-6606
0000-0002-8365-6907
0000-0003-0217-4576
0000-0002-1369-9442
0000-0001-9848-2666
0000-0002-0493-8536
0000-0002-6614-8417
0000-0002-2066-8345
0000-0002-2787-8484
DOI
10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034348
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to investigate timing, dose, and efficacy of upper limb intervention during the first 6 months poststroke. Three online databases were searched up to July 2020. Titles/abstracts/full-text were reviewed independently by 2 authors. Randomized and nonrandomized studies that enrolled people within the first 6 months poststroke, aimed to improve upper limb recovery, and completed preintervention and postintervention assessments were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane reporting tools. Studies were examined by timing (recovery epoch), dose, and intervention type. Two hundred and sixty-one studies were included, representing 228 (n=9704 participants) unique data sets. The number of studies completed increased from one (n=37 participants) between 1980 and 1984 to 91 (n=4417 participants) between 2015 and 2019. Timing of intervention start has not changed (median 38 days, interquartile range [IQR], 22-66) and study sample size remains small (median n=30, IQR 20-48). Most studies were rated high risk of bias (62%). Study participants were enrolled at different recovery epochs: 1 hyperacute (<24 hours), 13 acute (1-7 days), 176 early subacute (8-90 days), 34 late subacute (91-180 days), and 4 were unable to be classified to an epoch. For both the intervention and control groups, the median dose was 45 (IQR, 600-1430) min/session, 1 (IQR, 1-1) session/d, 5 (IQR, 5-5) d/wk for 4 (IQR, 3-5) weeks. The most common interventions tested were electromechanical (n=55 studies), electrical stimulation (n=38 studies), and constraint-induced movement (n=28 studies) therapies. Despite a large and growing body of research, intervention dose and sample size of included studies were often too small to detect clinically important effects. Furthermore, interventions remain focused on subacute stroke recovery with little change in recent decades. A united research agenda that establishes a clear biological understanding of timing, dose, and intervention type is needed to progress stroke recovery research. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018019367/CRD42018111629.
Link
Citation
Stroke 2021; 52(11): 3706-3717
Jornal Title
Stroke

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink