Conectar
by Kenneth S. Noguchi, Kevin Moncion, Elise Wiley, Ashley Morgan, Eric Huynh, Marla K. Beauchamp, Stuart M. Phillips, Lehana Thabane, Ada Tang
BackgroundStroke impacts nearly 14 million people annually. Muscle strength and physical function are often affected by stroke and important determinants of stroke recovery. Resistance exercise training (RT) has been shown to improve muscle strength, but RT prescriptions may be suboptimal for other aspects of stroke recovery. Parameters such as frequency, intensity, type, and duration may influence the effectiveness of RT interventions but have not been systematically evaluated.
Objectives1) To determine the effects of RT on stroke recovery, and 2) to examine the influence of RT parameters on intervention effects.
Eligibility criteriaRandomized controlled trials examining the effects of RT will be eligible for this systematic review if they: 1) included only adults with stroke or transient ischemic attack, 2) compared RT to no exercise or usual care, and 3) did not apply a co-intervention.
Study selectionEight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, AMED, PsychINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) and 2 clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) will be searched from inception. Two independent pairs of authors will compare titles, abstracts, and full-text reports against the eligibility criteria. Conflicts will be resolved by consensus or third author.
Main outcome measuresThe construct of interest is stroke recovery. An advisory group of clinicians, researchers, and partners with lived experience of stroke will be consulted to determine specific outcome measures of interest, and to rank their relative importance. We expect to include measures of physical function, strength, cognition, and quality of life. Random-effects meta-analyses will be used to pool results for each outcome across studies, and RT parameters (frequency, intensity, type, and duration) will be used as covariates in meta-regression analyses.
ConclusionThe results of this review will inform the optimal RT prescription parameters for promoting stroke recovery.
Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.
FreshRSS 