Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To identify the rehabilitative effects of robot-assisted therapy on balance function among stroke patients.
Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Data Sources: Thirteen electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2018: Web of Science, PubMed, EMBase, The Cochrane Library, Science Direct, CINAHL, MEDLINE, AMED, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, SPORTDiscus, WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Scientific Journal Database.
Review Methods: Randomized controlled trials were retrieved for identifying the effects of robot-assisted therapy on balance function among stroke patients. Two authors independently searched databases, screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality and risk bias of each included study. A standardized protocol and data-collection form were used to extract information. Effect size was evaluated by mean difference with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Methodological quality and risk bias evaluation for each included study followed the quality appraisal criteria for randomized controlled trials that were recommended by Cochrane Handbook. Meta-analysis was conducted by utilizing Review Manager 5.3, a Cochrane Collaboration tool. Data was synthesized with descriptive analysis instead of meta-analysis where comparisons were not possible to be conducted with a meta-analysis.
Results: Thirty-one randomized controlled trials with a total of 1249 participants were included. The majority of the included studies contained some methodological flaws. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that robot-assisted therapy produced positive effects on balance function, as shown by an increase in the Berg balance scale score [random effects model, mean difference = 4.64, 95%CI = 3.22-6.06, P<0.01], as well as Fugl-Meyer balance scale scores [fixed effects model, mean difference = 3.57, 95%CI = 2.81-4.34, P<0.01]. After subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the positive effects were not influenced by different types of robotic devices, by whether robot-assisted therapy was combined with another intervention or not, or by differences in duration and intensity of intervention.
Conclusion: Evidence in the present systematic review indicates that robot-assisted therapy may produce significantly positive improvements on balance function among stroke patients compared with those not using this method. More multi-center, high-quality and large-scale randomized controlled trials following the guidelines of CONSORT are necessary to generate high-quality evidence in further research.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.03.015 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!