Physiotherapy - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23
-
ItemHow Many Hours of Device Wear Time Are Required to Accurately Measure Physical Activity Post Stroke?(MDPI, 2022-02)BACKGROUND: Inadequate physical activity participation is a risk factor for secondary stroke. Before implementing appropriate management strategies, we need to accurately measure the physical activity of stroke survivors. We aimed to determine the duration of physical activity monitoring post-stroke that constitutes a valid day. METHODS: We sampled stroke survivors' physical activity for one week following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation using the Sensewear Armband (Bodymedia, Pittsburgh, PA, USA). To determine the impact of total daily wear time on activity estimate (sedentary, light, and moderate to vigorous physical activity) accuracy, we performed simulations, removing one, two, three, or four hours from a 14-h reference day, and analysed them with linear mixed models. RESULTS: Sixty-nine participants (46 male, 65 ± 15 years) with 271 days of physical activity data were included. All physical activity variables were significantly underestimated for all data sets (10, 11, 12, or 13 h) compared to the 14-h reference data set. The number of days classified as not meeting physical activity recommendations increased as daily monitoring duration decreased: 13% misclassification with 10-h compared to 14-h dataset (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of physical activity estimates increases with longer daily monitoring periods following stroke, and researchers should aim to monitor post-stroke physical activity for 14 daytime hours.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableFatal and Nonfatal Events Within 14 days After Early, Intensive Mobilization Poststroke(LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS, 2021-02-23)OBJECTIVE: This tertiary analysis from A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT) examined fatal and nonfatal serious adverse events (SAEs) at 14 days. METHOD: AVERT was a prospective, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomized international clinical trial comparing mobility training commenced <24 hours poststroke, termed very early mobilization (VEM), to usual care (UC). Primary outcome was assessed at 3 months. Patients with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke within 24 hours of onset were included. Treatment with thrombolytics was allowed. Patients with severe premorbid disability or comorbidities were excluded. Interventions continued for 14 days or hospital discharge if less. The primary early safety outcome was fatal SAEs within 14 days. Secondary outcomes were nonfatal SAEs classified as neurologic, immobility-related, and other. Mortality influences were assessed using binary logistic regression adjusted for baseline stroke severity (NIH Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score) and age. RESULTS: A total of 2,104 participants were randomized to VEM (n = 1,054) or UC (n = 1,050) with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range [IQR] 63-80) and NIHSS 7 (IQR 4-12). By 14 days, 48 had died in VEM, 32 in UC, age and stroke severity adjusted odds ratio of 1.76 (95% confidence interval 1.06-2.92, p = 0.029). Stroke progression was more common in VEM. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed higher odds of death in intracerebral hemorrhage and >80 years subgroups, but there was no significant treatment by subgroup interaction. No difference in nonfatal SAEs was found. CONCLUSION: While the overall case fatality at 14 days poststroke was only 3.8%, mortality adjusted for age and stroke severity was increased with high dose and intensive training compared to usual care. Stroke progression was more common in VEM. REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12606000185561. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that very early mobilization increases mortality at 14 days poststroke.
-
ItemEarly Mobilization After Stroke: Do Clinical Practice Guidelines Support Clinicians' Decision-Making?(FRONTIERS MEDIA SA, 2021-02-05)Importance: Early mobilization, out-of-bed activity, is a component of acute stroke unit care; however, stroke patient heterogeneity requires complex decision-making. Clinically credible and applicable CPGs are needed to support and optimize the delivery of care. In this study, we are specifically exploring the role of clinical practice guidelines to support individual patient-level decision-making by stroke clinicians about early mobilization post-stroke. Methods: Our study uses a novel, two-pronged approach. (1) A review of CPGs containing recommendations for early mobilization practices published after 2015 was appraised using purposely selected items from the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool relevant to decision-making for clinicians. (2) A cross-sectional study involving semi-structured interviews with Australian expert stroke clinicians representing content experts and CPG target users. Every CPG was independently assessed against the AGREE-REX standard by two reviewers. Expert stroke clinicians, invited via email, were recruited between June 2019 to March 2020.The main outcomes from the review was the proportion of criteria addressed for each AGREE-REX item by individual and all CPG(s). The main cross-sectional outcomes were the distributions of stroke clinicians' responses about the utility of CPGs, specific areas of uncertainty in early mobilization decision-making, and suggested parameters for inclusion in future early mobilization CPGs. Results: In 18 identified CPGs, many did not adequately address the "Evidence" and "Applicability to Patients" AGREE-REX items. Out of 30 expert stroke clinicians (11 physicians [37%], 11 physiotherapists [37%], 8 nurses [26%]; median [IQR] years of experience, 14 [10-25]), 47% found current CPGs "too broad or vague," while 40% rely on individual clinical judgement and interpretation of the evidence to select an evidence-based choice of action. The areas of uncertainty in decision-making revealed four key suggestions: (1) more granular descriptions of patient and stroke characteristics for appropriate tailoring of decisions, (2) clear statements about when clinical flexibility is appropriate, (3) detailed description of the intervention dose, and (4) physical assessment criteria including safety parameters. Conclusions: The lack of specificity, clinical applicability, and adaptability of current CPGs to effectively respond to the heterogeneous clinical stroke context has provided a clear direction for improvement.
-
ItemFactors associated with improved walking in older people during hospital rehabilitation: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial(BMC, 2021-01-31)BACKGROUND: Older people are often admitted for rehabilitation to improve walking, yet not everyone improves. The aim of this study was to determine key factors associated with a positive response to hospital-based rehabilitation in older people. METHODS: This was a secondary data analysis from a multisite randomized controlled trial. Older people (n= 198, median age 80.9 years, IQR 76.6- 87.2) who were admitted to geriatric rehabilitation wards with a goal to improve walking were recruited. Participants were randomized to receive additional daily physical therapy focused on mobility (n = 99), or additional social activities (n = 99). Self-selected gait speed was measured on admission and discharge. Four participants withdrew. People who changed gait speed ≥0.1 m/s were classified as 'responders' (n = 130); those that changed <0.1m/s were classified as 'non-responders' (n = 64). Multivariable logistic regression explored the association of six pre-selected participant factors (age, baseline ambulation status, frailty, co-morbidities, cognition, depression) and two therapy factors (daily supervised upright activity time, rehabilitation days) and response. RESULTS: Responding to rehabilitation was associated with the number of days in rehabilitation (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; p = .039) and higher Mini Mental State Examination scores (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.14; p = .048). No other factors were found to have association with responding to rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: In older people with complex health problems or multi-morbidities, better cognition and a longer stay in rehabilitation were associated with a positive improvement in walking speed. Further research to explore who best responds to hospital-based rehabilitation and what interventions improve rehabilitation outcomes is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000884707; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01910740 .
-
ItemAre we armed with the right data? Pooled individual data review of biomarkers in people with severe upper limb impairment after stroke(ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2017)UNLABELLED: To build an understanding of the neurobiology underpinning arm recovery in people with severe arm impairment due to stroke, we conducted a pooled individual data systematic review to: 1) characterize brain biomarkers; 2) determine relationship(s) between biomarkers and motor outcome; and 3) establish relationship(s) between biomarkers and motor recovery. Three electronic databases were searched up to October 2, 2015. Eligible studies included adults with severe arm impairment after stroke. Descriptive statistics were calculated to characterize brain biomarkers, and pooling of individual patient data was performed using mixed-effects linear regression to examine relationships between brain biomarkers and motor outcome and recovery. Thirty-eight articles including individual data from 372 people with severe arm impairment were analysed. The majority of individuals were in the chronic (> 6 months) phase post stroke (51%) and had a subcortical stroke (49%). The presence of a motor evoked potential (indexed by transcranial magnetic stimulation) was the only biomarker related to better motor outcome (p = 0.02). There was no relationship between motor outcome and stroke volume (cm3), location (cortical, subcortical, mixed) or side (left vs. right), and corticospinal tract asymmetry index (extracted from diffusion weighted imaging). Only one study had longitudinal data, thus no data pooling was possible to address change over time (preventing our third objective). Based on the available evidence, motor evoked potentials at rest were the only biomarker that predicted motor outcome in individuals with severe arm impairment following stroke. Given that few biomarkers emerged, this review highlights the need to move beyond currently known biomarkers and identify new indices with sufficient variability and sensitivity to guide recovery models in individuals with severe motor impairments following stroke. PROSPERO: CRD42015026107.
-
ItemValidity of Multisensor Array for Measuring Energy Expenditure of an Activity Bout in Early Stroke Survivors(HINDAWI LTD, 2018)Introduction. Stroke survivors use more energy than healthy people during activities such as walking, which has consequences for the way exercise is prescribed for stroke survivors. There is a need for wearable device that can validly measure energy expenditure (EE) of activity to inform exercise prescription early after stroke. We aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the SenseWear-Armband (SWA) to measure EE and step-counts during activity <1 month after stroke. Materials and Methods. EE was measured using the SWA and metabolic cart and steps-counts were measured using the SWA and direct observation. Based on walking ability, participants performed 2x six-minute walks or repeated sit-to-stands. Concurrent validity and test-retest reliability were determined by calculating intraclass and concordance correlation coefficients. Results and Discussion. Thirteen participants walked; nine performed sit-to-stands. Validity of the SWA measuring EE for both activities was poor (ICC/CCC < 0.40). The SWA overestimates EE during walking and underestimated EE during sit-to-stands. Test-retest agreement showed an ICC/CCC of <0.40 and >0.75 for walking and sit-to-stand, respectively. However, agreement levels changed with increasing EE levels (i.e., proportional bias). The SWA did not accurately measure step-counts. Conclusion. The SWA should be used with caution to measure EE of activity of mild to moderate stroke survivors <1 month after stroke.
-
ItemCharacterising Arm Recovery in People with Severe Stroke (CARPSS): protocol for a 12-month observational study of clinical, neuroimaging and neurophysiological biomarkers(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2018-11)INTRODUCTION: In individuals with early (indexed ≤7 days poststroke) and severe upper limb paresis (shoulder abduction and finger extension score of <5 out of 10), our objectives are to: (1) determine if biomarkers of brain structure and function collected at <1 month poststroke explain who will experience clinically important recovery over the first 12 months poststroke; (2) compare stroke survivors' perceptions of personally meaningful recovery to clinically important recovery; and (3) characterise the trajectory of change in measures of motor function, brain structure and function. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective observational study with an inception cohort of 78 first-time stroke survivors. Participants will be recruited from a single, large tertiary stroke referral centre. Clinical and biomarker assessments will be completed at four follow-up time points: 2 to 4 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months poststroke. Our primary outcome is achievement of clinically important improvement on two out of three measures that span impairment (Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb, change ≥10 points), activity (Motor Assessment Scale item 6, change ≥1 point) and participation (Rating of Everyday Arm-use in the Community and Home, change ≥1 point). Brain biomarkers of structure and function will be indexed using transcranial magnetic stimulation and MRI. Multilevel modelling will be performed to examine the relationship between clinically important recovery achieved (yes/no) and a priori defined brain biomarkers related to the corticospinal tract and corpus callosum. Secondary analyses will compare stroke survivor's perception of recovery, as well as real-world arm use via accelerometry, to the proposed metric of clinically meaningful recovery; and model trajectory of recovery across clinical, a priori defined biomarkers and exploratory variables related to functional connectivity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the hospital and university ethics review boards. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02464085.
-
ItemA systematic review protocol of timing, efficacy and cost effectiveness of upper limb therapy for motor recovery post-stroke(BMC, 2019-07-25)BACKGROUND: Improving upper limb (UL) motor recovery after stroke represents a major clinical and scientific goal. We aim to complete three systematic reviews to estimate the (1) association between time to start of UL therapy and motor recovery, (2) relative efficacy of different UL therapy approaches post-stroke and (3) cost-effectiveness of UL therapy interventions. METHODS: We have designed a systematic review protocol to address three systematic review questions that were each registered with PROSPERO. The search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials. We will include randomised controlled trials, non-randomised clinical trials, before-after studies and observational studies of adult stroke survivors with an average stroke onset < 6 months, undergoing hospital-based therapy to improve UL function. Eligible interventions will aim to promote UL functional recovery. Two reviewers will independently screen, select and extract data. Study risk of bias will be appraised using appropriate tools. Clinical measures of motor recovery will be investigated (primary measure Fugl Meyer UL assessment), as well as measures of health-related quality of life (primary measure EQ-5D) and all cost-effectiveness analyses completed. Secondary outcomes include therapy dose (minutes, weeks, repetitions as available) and safety (i.e. adverse events, serious adverse events). A narrative synthesis will describe quality and content of the evidence. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analyses where appropriate. DISCUSSION: We anticipate the findings of this review will increase our understanding of UL therapy and inform the generation of novel, data-driven hypotheses for future UL therapy research post-stroke. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018019367, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018111629, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018111628.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableA stroke recovery trial development framework: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2019-10)A major goal of the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) is to accelerate development of effective treatments to enhance stroke recovery beyond that expected to occur spontaneously or with current approaches. In this paper, we describe key issues for the next generation of stroke recovery treatment trials and present the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable Trials Development Framework (SRRR-TDF). An exemplar (an upper limb recovery trial) is presented to demonstrate the utility of this framework to guide the GO, NO-GO decision-making process in trial development.
-
ItemRationale for Intervention and Dose Is Lacking in Stroke Recovery Trials: A Systematic Review(HINDAWI LTD, 2018)BACKGROUND: The ineffectiveness of most complex stroke recovery trials may be explained by inadequate intervention design. The primary aim of this review was to explore the rationales given for interventions and dose in stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group library for RCTs that met the following criteria: (1) training based intervention; (2) >50% participants who were stroke survivors; (3) full peer-reviewed text; (4) English language. We extracted data on 16 quality items covering intervention dose (n= 3), trial design (n= 10), and risk of bias (n= 3) and 18 items related to trial method. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine whether (1) reporting of trial quality items changed over time; (2) reporting of quality items was associated with the likelihood of a positive trial, adjusted for sample size and number of outcomes. RESULTS: 27 Cochrane reviews were included, containing 9,044 participants from 194 trials. Publication dates were 1979 to 2013, sample size was median 32 (IQR 20,58), and primary outcome was reported in 49 trials (25%). The median total quality score was 4 (IQR 3,6) and improved significantly each year (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07, 1.16, p<0.001). Total quality score was not associated with likelihood of a positive trial, but trials containing a biological rationale for the intervention were more likely to find a difference in patient outcome (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.14, 4.19, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: To develop breakthrough treatments we need to build the rationale for research interventions and testing of intervention dosage. This will be achieved through a collective research agenda to understand the mechanistic principles that drive recovery and identification of clearer targets for clinical trials.