Does repetitive task training improve functional
activity after stroke? A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis
Beverley French, Lois Thomas , Michael Leathley, Christopher Sutton, Joanna McAdam, Anne Forster, Peter Langhorne, Christopher Price, Andrew Walker, Caroline Watkins
Objective: To determine if repetitive task training after stroke improves functional activity.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing repetitive task training with attention control or usual care.
Data sources: The Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, electronic databases of published, unpublished and non-English language papers; conference proceedings, reference lists, and trial authors.
Review methods: Included studies were randomized/quasi-randomized trials in adults after stroke where an active motor sequence aiming to improve functional activity was performed repetitively within a single training session. We used Cochrane Collaboration methods, resources, and software.
Results: We included 14 trials with 17 intervention-control pairs and 659 participants. Results were statistically significant for walking distance (mean difference 54.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.5, 91.7); walking speed (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.29, 95% CI 0.04, 0.53); sit-to-stand (standard effect estimate 0.35, 95% CI 0.13, 0.56), and activities of daily living: SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07, 0.51; and of borderline statistical significance for measures of walking ability (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.00, 0.51), and global motor function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI –0.01, 0.66). There were no statistically significant differences for hand/arm functional activity, lower limb functional activity scales, or sitting/standing balance/reach.
Conclusion: Repetitive task training resulted in modest improvement across a range of lower limb outcome measures, but not upper limb outcome measures. Training may be sufficient to have a small impact on activities of daily living. Interventions involving elements of repetition and task training are diverse and difficult to classify: the results presented are specific to trials where both elements are clearly present in the intervention, without major confounding by other potential mechanisms of action.
Do you want to comment on this paper? The comments will show up here and if appropriate the comments will also separately be forwarded to the authors.
You need to login/create an account to comment on articles. Click here to login/create an account