Objective. The aim of the study was to present a systematic review of studies that investigate the effects of robot-assisted therapy on motor and functional recovery in patients with stroke. Methods. A database of articles published up to October 2006 was compiled using the following Medline key words: cerebral vascular accident, cerebral vascular disorders, stroke, paresis, hemiplegia, upper extremity, arm, and robot. References listed in relevant publications were also screened. Studies that satisfied the following selection criteria were included: (1) patients were diagnosed with cerebral vascular accident; (2) effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb were investigated; (3) the outcome was measured in terms of motor and/or functional recovery of the upper paretic limb; and (4) the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). For each outcome measure, the estimated effect size (ES) and the summary effect size (SES) expressed in standard deviation units (SDU) were calculated for motor recovery and functional ability (activities of daily living [ADLs]) using fixed and random effect models. Ten studies, involving 218 patients, were included in the synthesis. Their methodological quality ranged from 4 to 8 on a (maximum) 10-point scale. Results. Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant heterogeneous SES in terms of upper limb motor recovery. Sensitivity analysis of studies involving only shoulder-elbow robotics subsequently demonstrated a significant homogeneous SES for motor recovery of the upper paretic limb. No significant SES was observed for functional ability (ADL). Conclusion. As a result of marked heterogeneity in studies between distal and proximal arm robotics, no overall significant effect in favor of robot-assisted therapy was found in the present meta-analysis. However, subsequent sensitivity analysis showed a significant improvement in upper limb motor function after stroke for upper arm robotics. No significant improvement was found in ADL function. However, the administered ADL scales in the reviewed studies fail to adequately reflect recovery of the paretic upper limb, whereas valid instruments that measure outcome of dexterity of the paretic arm and hand are mostly absent in selected studies. Future research into the effects of robot-assisted therapy should therefore distinguish between upper and lower robotics arm training and concentrate on kinematical analysis to differentiate between genuine upper limb motor recovery and functional recovery due to compensation strategies by proximal control of the trunk and upper limb.

The first Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable established a game changing set of new standards for stroke recovery research. Common language and definitions were required to develop an agreed framework spanning the four working groups: translation of basic science, biomarkers of stroke recovery, measurement in clinical trials and intervention development and reporting. This paper outlines the working definitions established by our group and an agreed vision for accelerating progress in stroke recovery research.

Physical therapy (PT) is one of the key disciplines in interdisciplinary stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the evidence for stroke rehabilitation interventions in the domain of PT. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding PT in stroke rehabilitation were retrieved through a systematic search. Outcomes were classified according to the ICF. RCTs with a low risk of bias were quantitatively analyzed. Differences between phases poststroke were explored in subgroup analyses. A best evidence synthesis was performed for neurological treatment approaches. The search yielded 467 RCTs (N = 25373; median PEDro score 6 [IQR 5–7]), identifying 53 interventions. No adverse events were reported. Strong evidence was found for significant positive effects of 13 interventions related to gait, 11 interventions related to arm-hand activities, 1 intervention for ADL, and 3 interventions for physical fitness. Summary Effect Sizes (SESs) ranged from 0.17 (95%CI 0.03–0.70; I² = 0%) for therapeutic positioning of the paretic arm to 2.47 (95%CI 0.84–4.11; I² = 77%) for training of sitting balance. There is strong evidence that a higher dose of practice is better, with SESs ranging from 0.21 (95%CI 0.02–0.39; I² = 6%) for motor function of the paretic arm to 0.61 (95%CI 0.41–0.82; I² = 41%) for muscle strength of the paretic leg. Subgroup analyses yielded significant differences with respect to timing poststroke for 10 interventions. Neurological treatment approaches to training of body functions and activities showed equal or unfavorable effects when compared to other training interventions. Main limitations of the present review are not using individual patient data for meta-analyses and absence of correction for multiple testing. There is strong evidence for PT interventions favoring intensive high repetitive task-oriented and task-specific training in all phases poststroke. Effects are mostly restricted to the actually trained functions and activities. Suggestions for prioritizing PT stroke research are given.

Background and Purpose— To present a systematic review of studies that addresses the effects of intensity of augmented exercise therapy time (AETT) on activities of daily living (ADL), walking, and dexterity in patients with stroke. Summary of Review— A database of articles published from 1966 to November 2003 was compiled from MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro, DARE, and PiCarta using combinations of the following key words: stroke, cerebrovascular disorders, physical therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, exercise therapy, rehabilitation, intensity, dose–response relationship, effectiveness, and randomized controlled trial. References presented in relevant publications were examined as well as abstracts in proceedings. Studies that satisfied the following selection criteria were included: (1) patients had a diagnosis of stroke; (2) effects of intensity of exercise training were investigated; and (3) design of the study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). For each outcome measure, the estimated effect size (ES) and the summary effect size (SES) expressed in standard deviation units (SDU) were calculated for ADL, walking speed, and dexterity using fixed and random effect models. Correlation coefficients were calculated between observed individual effect sizes on ADL of each study, additional time spent on exercise training, and methodological quality. Cumulative meta-analyses (random effects model) adjusted for the difference in treatment intensity in each study was used for the trials evaluating the effects of AETT provided. Twenty of the 31 candidate studies, involving 2686 stroke patients, were included in the synthesis. The methodological quality ranged from 2 to 10 out of the maximum score of 14 points. The meta-analysis resulted in a small but statistically significant SES with regard to ADL measured at the end of the intervention phase. Further analysis showed a significant homogeneous SES for 17 studies that investigated effects of increased exercise intensity within the first 6 months after stroke. No significant SES was observed for the 3 studies conducted in the chronic phase. Cumulative meta-analysis strongly suggests that at least a 16-hour difference in treatment time between experimental and control groups provided in the first 6 months after stroke is needed to obtain significant differences in ADL. A significant SES supporting a higher intensity was also observed for instrumental ADL and walking speed, whereas no significant SES was found for dexterity. Conclusion— The results of the present research synthesis support the hypothesis that augmented exercise therapy has a small but favorable effect on ADL, particularly if therapy input is augmented at least 16 hours within the first 6 months after stroke. This meta-analysis also suggests that clinically relevant treatment effects may be achieved on instrumental ADL and gait speed.

Objectives: Gait and mobility problems are difficult to treat in people with Parkinson’s disease. The Rehabilitation in Parkinson’s Disease: Strategies for Cueing (RESCUE) trial investigated the effects of a home physiotherapy programme based on rhythmical cueing on gait and gait-related activity. Methods: A single-blind randomised crossover trial was set up, including 153 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged between 41 and 80 years and in Hoehn and Yahr stage II–IV. Subjects allocated to early intervention (n = 76) received a 3-week home cueing programme using a prototype cueing device, followed by 3 weeks without training. Patients allocated to late intervention (n = 77) underwent the same intervention and control period in reverse order. After the initial 6 weeks, both groups had a 6-week follow-up without training. Posture and gait scores (PG scores) measured at 3, 6 and 12 weeks by blinded testers were the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included specific measures on gait, freezing and balance, functional activities, quality of life and carer strain. Results: Small but significant improvements were found after intervention of 4.2% on the PG scores (p = 0.005). Severity of freezing was reduced by 5.5% in freezers only (p = 0.007). Gait speed (p = 0.005), step length (p<0.001) and timed balance tests (p = 0.003) improved in the full cohort. Other than a greater confidence to carry out functional activities (Falls Efficacy Scale, p = 0.04), no carry-over effects were observed in functional and quality of life domains. Effects of intervention had reduced considerably at 6-week follow-up. Conclusions: Cueing training in the home has specific effects on gait, freezing and balance. The decline in effectiveness of intervention effects underscores the need for permanent cueing devices and follow-up treatment. Cueing training may be a useful therapeutic adjunct to the overall management of gait disturbance in Parkinson’s disease.