The effects of increased dose of exercise-based therapies to enhance motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-based therapy is known to enhance motor recovery after stroke but the most appropriate amount, i.e. the dose, of therapy is unknown. To determine the strength of current evidence for provision of a higher dose of the same types of exercise-based therapy to enhance motor recovery after stroke. METHODS: An electronic search of: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, AMED, and CENTRAL was undertaken. Two independent reviewers selected studies using predetermined inclusion criteria: randomised or quasi randomised controlled trials with or without blinding of assessors; adults, 18+ years, with a clinical diagnosis of stroke; experimental and control group interventions identical except for dose; exercise-based interventions investigated; and outcome measures of motor impairment, movement control or functional activity. Two reviewers independently extracted outcome and follow-up data. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were interpreted with reference to risk of bias in included studies. RESULTS: 9 papers reporting 7 studies were included. Only 3 of the 7 included studies had all design elements assessed as low risk of bias. Intensity of the control intervention ranged from a mean of 9 to 28 hours over a maximum of 20 weeks. Experimental groups received between 14 and 92 hours of therapy over a maximum of 20 weeks. The included studies were heterogeneous with respect to types of therapy, outcome measures and time-points for outcome and follow-up. Consequently, most effect sizes relate to one study only. Single study effect sizes suggest a trend for better recovery with increased dose at the end of therapy but this trend was less evident at follow-up Meta-analysis was possible at outcome for: hand-grip strength, -10.1 [-19.1,-1.2] (2 studies, 97 participants); Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), 0.1 [-5.7,6.0] (3 studies, 126 participants); and comfortable walking speed, 0.3 [0.1,0.5] (2 studies, 58 participants). At follow-up, between 12 and 26 weeks after start of therapy, meta-analysis findings were: Motricity Arm, 10.7 [1.7,19.8] (2 studies, 83 participants); ARAT, 2.2 [-6.0,10.4] (2 studies, 83 participants); Rivermead Mobility, 1.0 [-0.6, 2.5] (2 studies, 83 participants); and comfortable walking speed, 0.2 [0.0,0.4] (2 studies, 60 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence provides some, but limited, support for the hypothesis that a higher dose of the same type of exercised-based therapy enhances motor recovery after stroke. Prospective dose-finding studies are required.

Efficacy of functional strength training on restoration of lower-limb motor function early after stroke: phase I randomized controlled trial.

UNLABELLED: After stroke, physiotherapy can promote brain reorganization and motor recovery. Combining muscle strength and functional training (functional strength training, FST) may be beneficial. The aim of the authors was to compare FST with conventional physiotherapy (CPT) while controlling for the potential confounder of therapy intensity in a multicenter, randomized controlled observer-blind trial. The mean age of the participants was 68.3 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.03) years at a mean of 34 (SD = 20) days after stroke, with mean peak paretic knee extension torque (torque) of 22 (SD = 25) Nm. The estimated sample size was 102 to detect a between-group difference of 0.2 m/s in walking speed. After baseline measures, participants were allocated randomly to CPT or CPT + CPT or CPT + FST for 6 weeks. Additional experimental therapy was provided for up to 1 hour a day, 4 times each week. Outcomes were measured 6 weeks after baseline and at follow-up 12 weeks thereafter. MEASURES: included walking speed, knee extensor torque, and functional mobility (Rivermead). At outcome, both extraintensity groups showed greater increases in walking speed than the CPT group, but this reached significance only for the CPT + CPT group (P = .031). The CPT + CPT group also had a greater number of participants who walked at 0.8 m/s or above. No significant differences were observed for torque about the knee or for the Rivermead score. At follow-up, no significant differences were observed. These phase I results justify a subsequent trial of CPT + CPT versus CPT + FST.