Browsing by Person "Pomeroy, V."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. A major update.
(2014-10) Pollock, A.; Baer, Gill; Campbell, P.; Choo, P-L; Forster, A.; Morris, J.; Pomeroy, V.; Langhorne, P.
Objectives We aimed to determine whether physical rehabilitation approaches are effective in recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess whether any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach. Methods A stakeholder group, comprising stroke survivors, caregivers, and physiotherapists, made decisions using consensus-making techniques relating to the scope and focus of this updated review.1 We performed a comprehensive search (to December 2012),1 including randomized controlled trials of physical rehabilitation approaches in adult stroke survivors. Interventions comprised a range of philosophically different approaches to promote recovery of function or mobility. Randomized controlled trials of single specific treatments were excluded. Outcomes analyzed were independence in activities of daily living, motor function, balance, gait, and length of stay. Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects model.
Physiotherapy treatment approaches following stroke: major update of Cochrane systematic review of evidence
(Wiley, 2013-12) Pollock, A.; Campbell, P.; Morris, J.; Forster, A.; Pomeroy, V.; Langhorne, P. P.; Baer, Gill
Introduction:-Physiotherapists traditionally base stroke rehabilitation practice on global 'approaches' (e.g. Bobath and Motor Learning approaches). A 2007 Cochrane systematic review explored the effect of different physiotherapy approaches for stroke, but failed to include all foreign-language (particularly Chinese) trials. We aim to update this Cochrane review, restructuring to incorporate all current international evidence relating to effectiveness of physiotherapy treatment approaches. Method:-Our Cochrane review update is based on searches of electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED) from 2005-December 2012. Foreign-language abstracts have been translated. Two independent reviewers applied selection criteria with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Two review authors will independently categorise the interventions within identified trials, document methodological quality, and extract data. Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess methodological quality. Data from included studies will be pooled within meta-analyses, calculating standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, using a random-effects model, for disability, motor impairment and participation outcomes. Results:-(June 2013) We considered 11,576 titles, screened 592 abstracts and included 75 new RCTs (n-=-896, plus 13 awaiting assessment). 49/75 RCTs were completed in China. 38/75 RCTs compare a physical rehabilitation approach with no rehabilitation. Our updated review synthesises evidence from 95 trials (n-=-10,048). Data extraction is ongoing and meta-analyses will be completed by October 2013. Conclusion:-This major Cochrane review update substantially increases the volume of evidence, with trials including over 10,000 participants, providing the most comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of international evidence relating to the effect of physiotherapy treatment approaches after stroke.