Low bone mineral density in ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy? A systematic review.

Purpose: Non-ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy are prone to low bone mineral density. In ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy, bone mineral density deficits are expected to be small or absent, but a consensus conclusion is lacking. In this systematic review bone mineral density in ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy (Gross Motor Function Classification Scales I-III) was studied. Materials and methods: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched. According to international guidelines, low bone mineral density was defined as Z-score ≤ -2.0. In addition, we focused on Z-score ≤ -1.0 because this may indicate a tendency towards low bone mineral density. Results: We included 16 studies, comprising 465 patients aged 1-65 years. Moderate and conflicting evidence for low bone mineral density (Z-score ≤ -2.0) was found for several body parts (total proximal femur, total body, distal femur, lumbar spine) in children with Gross Motor Function Classification Scales II and III. We found no evidence for low bone mineral density in children with Gross Motor Function Classification Scale I or adults, although there was a tendency towards low bone mineral density (Z-score ≤ -1.0) for several body parts. Conclusions: Although more high-quality research is needed, results indicate that deficits in bone mineral density are not restricted to non-ambulatory people with cerebral palsy. Implications for Rehabilitation Although more high-quality research is needed, including adults and fracture risk assessment, the current study indicates that deficits in bone mineral density are not restricted to non-ambulatory people with CP. Health care professionals should be aware that optimal nutrition, supplements on indication, and an active lifestyle, preferably with weight-bearing activities, are important in ambulatory people with CP, also from a bone quality point-of-view. If indicated, medication and fall prevention training should be prescribed.

Prevention and treatment of hand oedema after stroke.

PURPOSE: As there is no evidence for a specific treatment for post-stroke-induced hand oedema, rehabilitation centre Blixembosch formalized a best practice protocol. We investigated whether the Blixembosch hand oedema protocol is usable in daily practice and leads to lower incidence (prevention) and shorter duration (treatment) compared with care as usual. METHODS: In a non-randomised comparative trial, we investigated 206 post-stroke patients admitted to two Dutch rehabilitation centres. Hand volumes were measured at least bi-weekly using a volumeter. Treatment was started according the protocol (Blixembosch) or following care as usual (Leijpark). Usability was assessed with a survey among professionals. RESULTS: In the Blixembosch group, 16% developed oedema after admission, compared with 21% in the control group (p = 0.019). Average duration of oedema (both developed before and after admission) was 6.5 weeks in the Blixembosch group compared with 3.1 weeks in the control group (p = 0.000). Professionals were positive about the protocol. CONCLUSION: The study showed that the protocol is usable in daily practice and has a small beneficial effect on hand oedema incidence rates compared with care as usual. The negative effect on duration of hand oedema could also be caused by the difference in prognosis between the two groups.

Cognitive behavioural therapy versus multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (FatiGo).

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome experience extreme fatigue, which often leads to substantial limitations of occupational, educational, social and personal activities. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the treatment. Patients try many different therapies to overcome their fatigue. Although there is no consensus, cognitive behavioural therapy is seen as one of the most effective treatments. Little is known about multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment, a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy with principles of mindfulness, gradual increase of activities, body awareness therapy and pacing. The difference in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness between multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment and cognitive behavioural therapy is as yet unknown. The FatiGo (Fatigue-Go) trial aims to compare the effects of both treatment approaches in outpatient rehabilitation on fatigue severity and quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients who meet the criteria of chronic fatigue syndrome, fulfil the inclusion criteria and sign the informed consent form will be recruited. Both treatments take 6 months to complete. The outcome will be assessed at 6 and 12 months after the start of treatment. Two weeks after the start of treatment, expectancy and credibility will be measured, and patients will be asked to write down their personal goals and score their current performance on these goals on a visual analogue scale. At 6 and 14 weeks after the start of treatment, the primary outcome and three potential mediators-self-efficacy, causal attributions and present-centred attention-awareness-will be measured. Primary outcomes are fatigue severity and quality of life. Secondary outcomes are physical activity, psychological symptoms, self-efficacy, causal attributions, impact of disease on emotional and physical functioning, present-centred attention-awareness, life satisfaction, patient personal goals, self-rated improvement and economic costs. The primary analysis will be based on intention to treat, and longitudinal analysis of covariance will be used to compare treatments. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will provide information on the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy and multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment at 6 and 12 months follow-up, mediators of the outcome, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and the influence of treatment expectancy and credibility on the effectiveness of both treatments in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77567702.