Search

Study design Methodological review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective To assess the quality of reporting of rehabilitation interventions for mechanical low back pain (LBP) in published RCTs. Summary of background data Reporting of interventions in RCTs often focused on the outcome value and failed to describe interventions adequately. Methods We systematically searched for all RCTs in Cochrane systematic reviews on LBP published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until December 2013. The description of rehabilitation interventions of each RCT was evaluated independently by 2 of the investigators, using an ad hoc checklist of 7 items. The primary outcome was the number of items reported in sufficient details to be replicable in a new RCT or in everyday practice. Results We found 11 systematic reviews, including 220 eligible RCTs, on LBP. Of those, 185 RCTs were included. The median publication year was 1998 (I-III quartiles, 1990 to 2004). The most reported items were the characteristics of participants (91.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87.3-95.4), the intervention providers (81.1%; 95% CI, 75.4-86.7), and the intervention schedule (69.7%; 95% CI, 63-76). Based on the description of the intervention, less than one fifth would be replicable clinically. The proportion of trials providing all essential information about the participants and interventions increased from 14% (n = 7) in 1971 to 1980 to 20% (n = 75) in 2001 to 2010. Conclusion Despite the remarkable amount of energy spent producing RCTs in LBP rehabilitation, the majority of RCTs failed to report sufficient information that would allow the intervention to be replicated in clinical practice. Improving the quality of intervention description is urgently needed to better transfer research into rehabilitation practices. Level of evidence 1.

Background In people who have had a stroke, upper limb paresis affects many activities of daily life. Reducing disability is therefore a major aim of rehabilitative interventions. Despite preserving or recovering movement ability after stroke, sometimes people do not fully realise this ability in their everyday activities. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is an approach to stroke rehabilitation that involves the forced use and massed practice of the affected arm by restraining the unaffected arm. This has been proposed as a useful tool for recovering abilities in everyday activities. Objectives To assess the efficacy of CIMT, modified CIMT (mCIMT), or forced use (FU) for arm management in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), CINAHL (1982 to January 2015), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; January 2015). Selection criteria Randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing CIMT, mCIMT or FU with other rehabilitative techniques, or none. Data collection and analysis One author identified trials from the results of the electronic searches according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, three review authors independently assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcome was disability. Main results We included 42 studies involving 1453 participants. The trials included participants who had some residual motor power of the paretic arm, the potential for further motor recovery and with limited pain or spasticity, but tended to use the limb little, if at all. The majority of studies were underpowered (median number of included participants was 29) and we cannot rule out small-trial bias. Eleven trials (344 participants) assessed disability immediately after the intervention, indicating a non-significant standard mean difference (SMD) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05 to 0.52) favouring CIMT compared with conventional treatment. For the most frequently reported outcome, arm motor function (28 studies involving 858 participants), the SMD was 0.34 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.55) showing a significant effect (P value 0.004) in favour of CIMT. Three studies involving 125 participants explored disability after a few months of follow-up and found no significant difference, SMD -0.20 (95% CI -0.57 to 0.16) in favour of conventional treatment. Authors' conclusions CIMT is a multi-faceted intervention where restriction of the less affected limb is accompanied by increased exercise tailored to the person’s capacity. We found that CIMT was associated with limited improvements in motor impairment and motor function, but that these benefits did not convincingly reduce disability. This differs from the result of our previous meta-analysis where there was a suggestion that CIMT might be superior to traditional rehabilitation. Information about the long-term effects of CIMT is scarce. Further trials studying the relationship between participant characteristics and improved outcomes are required.

95% CI 31.9% – 45.9%), and quality of life (45/185; 24,3%, 95% CI 18.1% – 30.5%) measured respectively by 70, 43, 41, 19 different measurement instruments (Figure 2). The procedure of blinding assessment was reported in 49.7% of the RCTs for pain (n= 82 RCTs) and 45% of RCTs for disability (n=53 RCTs). Pain, disability, range of motion, and quality of life outcomes were reported as fully replicable in 10.3% (n= 17 RCTs), 10.1% (n= 12 RCTs), 5.5% (n= 4 RCTs), and 6.6% (n= 3 RCTs) of the RCTs, respectively (Figure 3).

Graeme J. Hankey MD, FRACP, FRCP Section Editor Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is a current approach to stroke rehabilitation that implies the forced and prolonged use of the affected arm by restraining the unaffected arm by enhancing the recovery of the residual motor power. The enhancement of the residual motor power by compulsory exercise is controversial. The objective was to assess the efficacy of CIMT for arm management in hemiparetic patients. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro (all to June 2008). We selected randomized trials comparing CIMT, modified CIMT, or forced use with other rehabilitative techniques or none in adults after …

Background In stroke patients, upper limb paresis affects many activities of daily life. Reducing disability is therefore a major aim of rehabilitation programmes for hemiparetic patients. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is a current approach to stroke rehabilitation that implies the forced use and the massed practice of the affected arm by restraining the unaffected arm. Objectives To assess the efficacy of CIMT, modified CIMT (mCIMT), or forced use (FU) for arm management in hemiparetic patients. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched June 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2008), EMBASE (1980 to June 2008), CINAHL (1982 to June 2008), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (June 2008). Selection criteria Randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (qRCTs) comparing CIMT, mCIMT or FU with other rehabilitative techniques, or none. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently classified the identified trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was disability. Main results We included 19 studies involving 619 participants. The trials included participants who had some residual motor power of the paretic arm, the potential for further motor recovery and with limited pain or spasticity, but tended to use the limb little if at all. Only five studies had adequate allocation concealment. The majority of studies were underpowered (median number of included patients was 15) and we cannot rule out small-trial bias. Six trials (184 patients) assessed disability immediately after the intervention, indicating a significant standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.65. For the most frequently reported outcome, arm motor function (11 studies involving 373 patients), the SMD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.12). There were only two studies that explored disability improvement after a few months of follow up and found no significant difference, SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.40). Authors' conclusions CIMT is a multifaceted intervention: the restriction to the normal limb is accompanied by a certain amount of exercise of the appropriate quality. It is associated with a moderate reduction in disability assessed at the end of the treatment period. However, for disability measured some months after the end of treatment, there was no evidence of persisting benefit. Further randomised trials, with larger sample sizes and longer follow up, are justified.