[Certification by the German Society for Neurorehabiliation, DGNR : Performance and quality of the "Centers for weaning from a ventilator in early neurological and neurosurgical rehabilitation"]. / Zertifizierung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurorehabilitation e. V., DGNR : Leistung und Qualität der "Zentren für Beatmungsentwöhnung in der neurologisch-neurochirurgischen Frührehabilitation".

BACKGROUND: Certification of centers for weaning from a ventilator in neurological neurosurgical early rehabilitation (NNER) by the German Society for Neurorehabilitation (DGNR) is possible since 1 October 2021. OBJECTIVE: The results of certification of facilities in the first year after starting the procedure are presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As part of the certification process 28 criteria are assessed including a set of mandatory characteristics of the facility. The criteria are divided into structural criteria (i = 7), diagnostic criteria (i = 6), personnel criteria (i = 3), internal organization criteria (i = 7), and quality management criteria (i = 5). RESULTS: A total of 13 centers were certified in the first year, with a combined total of 283 beds for weaning from a ventilator in the NNER and served 2278 persons to be weaned from a ventilator in the year before certification, with a median of 134 per facility (range 44-414). Only rarely was weaning unsuccessful, requiring conversion to home mechanical ventilation before discharge (invasive home mechanical ventilation median per facility 10 persons, range 2-25; non-invasive home mechanical ventilation median 0 persons, range 0-57). A high level of process and structural quality was documented for the certified centers: across all areas of assessment, the individual certification criteria were met in the vast majority of cases (median degree of complete fulfilment 86%) or met with improvement potentials documented by the auditors (median 11%). CONCLUSION: Successful weaning in NNER and a high level of process and structural quality can be demonstrated by the certification results of centers that follow this integrative approach to weaning from a ventilator in a NNER setting.

[The certification of centers for weaning from mechanical ventilation in neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation by the German Society for Neurorehabilitation]. / Die Zertifizierung von Zentren für Beatmungsentwöhnung in der neurologisch-neurochirurgischen Frührehabilitation durch die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurorehabilitation.

Specialized centers for weaning in neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation can be certified by the German Society for Neurorehabilitation (DGNR) since 1 October 2021. The certification criteria are indicators for structure and process quality and for treatment results for weaning of neurological patients from mechanical ventilation. In Germany these patients are treated in departments for neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation in acute care hospitals as well as in specialized rehabilitation hospitals. Acknowledging this diversity of care, certification is possible for both kinds of institutions. Certification is granted by the DGNR in cooperation with TÜV Rheinland as the certification authority, analogous to the certification of stroke units. Institutions apply for certification by sending all necessary documents to the TÜV Rheinland. Afterwards auditors of the TÜV Rheinland (lead auditor) and the DGNR (medical speciality auditor) visit the institution on site. The results of this visit are reported to the certification committee of the DGNR, which in turn recommends or declines certification. The certification of centers for weaning in neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation is an important step towards defining neurorespiratory care and the role of the neurologist for intensive care and weaning in Germany. Thereby, the interdisciplinary dialogue between pneumologists, anesthesiologists, and neurologists is fostered. Also, the dialogue on treatment capacities and strategies with healthcare politicians, health insurances, and patient associations is facilitated.

Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait-training devices are used in rehabilitation and might help to improve walking after stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007 and previously updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: Primary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus normal care improves walking after stroke Secondary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus normal care after stroke improves walking velocity, walking capacity, acceptability, and death from all causes until the end of the intervention phase SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 6 January 2020); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020 Issue 1), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE in Ovid (1950 to 6 January 2020); Embase (1980 to 6 January 2020); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 20 November 2019); the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED; 1985 to 6 January 2020); Web of Science (1899 to 7 January 2020); SPORTDiscus (1949 to 6 January 2020); the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; searched 7 January 2020); and the engineering databases COMPENDEX (1972 to 16 January 2020) and Inspec (1969 to 6 January 2020). We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trial authors in an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled cross-over trials in people over the age of 18 years diagnosed with stroke of any severity, at any stage, in any setting, evaluating electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus normal care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants walking independently at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this review update 62 trials involving 2440 participants. Electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy increased the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (odds ratio (random effects) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 2.69; 38 studies, 1567 participants; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence) and increased mean walking velocity (mean difference (MD) 0.06 m/s, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10; 42 studies, 1600 participants; P = 0.004; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence) but did not improve mean walking capacity (MD 10.9 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI -5.7 to 27.4; 24 studies, 983 participants; P = 0.2; I² = 42%; moderate-quality evidence). Electromechanical-assisted gait training did not increase the risk of loss to the study during intervention nor the risk of death from all causes. Results must be interpreted with caution because (1) some trials investigated people who were independent in walking at the start of the study, (2) we found variation between trials with respect to devices used and duration and frequency of treatment, and (3) some trials included devices with functional electrical stimulation. Post hoc analysis showed that people who are non-ambulatory at the start of the intervention may benefit but ambulatory people may not benefit from this type of training. Post hoc analysis showed no differences between the types of devices used in studies regarding ability to walk but revealed differences between devices in terms of walking velocity and capacity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People who receive electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy after stroke are more likely to achieve independent walking than people who receive gait training without these devices. We concluded that eight patients need to be treated to prevent one dependency in walking. Specifically, people in the first three months after stroke and those who are not able to walk seem to benefit most from this type of intervention. The role of the type of device is still not clear. Further research should consist of large definitive pragmatic phase 3 trials undertaken to address specific questions about the most effective frequency and duration of electromechanical-assisted gait training, as well as how long any benefit may last. Future trials should consider time post stroke in their trial design.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke. We found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment. Thirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of robotic-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living and upper limb function after stroke.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to to assess the relative effectiveness of the various types of electromechanical-assisted arm devices and approaches after stroke. METHOD: This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with network meta-analysis. Our primary endpoints were activities of daily living (measured e.g. with Barthel-Index) and hand-arm function (measured e.g. with the Fugl-Meyer Scale for the upper limb), our secondary endpoints were hand-arm strength (measured e.g. with the Motricity Index) and safety. We used conventional arm training as our reference category and compared it with different intervention categories of electromechanical-assisted arm training depending on the therapy approach. We did indirect comparisons between the type of robotic device. We considered the heterogeneity of the studies by means of confidence and prediction intervals. RESULTS: Fifty five randomized controlled trials, including 2654 patients with stroke, met our inclusion criteria. For the primary endpoints activities of daily living and hand-arm function and the secondary endpoint hand-arm strength, none of the interventions achieved statistically significant improvements, taking into account the heterogeneity of the studies. Safety did not differ with regard to the individual interventions of arm rehabilitation after stroke. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of robotic-assisted arm training were comparable with conventional therapy. Indirect comparisons suggest that no one type of robotic device is any better or worse than any other device, providing no clear evidence to support the selection of specific types of robotic device to promote hand-arm recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017075411.

[Multidrug Resistant Organisms (MDRO) in Rehabilitation: Prevalence and Risk Factors for MRGN and VRE]. / Multiresistente Erreger (MRE) in der Rehabilitation: Prävalenz und Risikofaktoren für MRGN und VRE.

BACKGROUND: After a first large-scale study on multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) in rehabilitation facilities in 2014, the Rhine-Main network on MDRO carried out another investigation in 2019. With regard to the recently published KRINKO recommendations on multidrug resistant enterococci, now vancomycin -resistant enterococci (VRE) and multi-drug resistant gram-negative pathogens (3MRGN and 4MRGN, i. e. gramnegative organisms resistant against 3 resp. 4 groups of antiinfectiva) were investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 16 hospitals took part, including one clinic for early neurological rehabilitation (ENR). Patient participation was voluntary. Rectal swabs were analyzed in a medical-microbiological laboratory (certified according to DIN ISO 15189) using standard methods (including MALDI-TOF-MS and VITEK 2 resistance testing according to EUCAST). By using the standardized questionnaire of the Europe-wide HALT examination (healthcare associated infections in long-term care facilities), patient characteristics (age, gender, hospital, surgical and MDRO medical history, Medical devices, current antibiotic therapy etc.) were collected. RESULTS: 928 patients took part in the study, 895 from general rehabilitation facilities (GR) and 33 from early neurological rehabilitation (ENR). 65% of GR patients (ENR 100%) had been hospitalized in the previous 6 months, 29% (ENR 100%) of the patients had been admitted directly from a hospital, 22% (ENR 64%) had received antibiotic therapy in the last 3 months. Medical devices were rarely used in GR patients with 1% overall, but often in the ENR with 61% urinary catheters and 36% vascular catheters. 2.2% (ENR 33.3%) of GR patients were colonized with VRE and 6.7% (ENR 18.2%) with 3MRGN; one patient exhibited a 4MRGN (ENR 0). DISCUSSION: Compared to our previous study, there were no significant changes in the patient characteristics. The VRE prevalence was low at 3.3%, the prevalence of 3MRGN was higher compared to 2014 (7.1% vs. 3.6%). Risk factors for VRE and 3MRGN colonization (significant increased odds ratio) were: history of hospital treatment and an increased need for care due to restricted mobility, incontinence and disorientation. In addition, previous antibiotic treatment and skin barrier injuries due to Medical devices or wounds were detected as further risk factors for VRE colonization.

[Weaning in neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation-Results from the "WennFrüh" study of the German Society for Neurorehabilitation]. / Weaning in der neurologisch-neurochirurgischen Frührehabilitation ­ Ergebnisse der "WennFrüh"-Studie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurorehabilitation.

Neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation patients are often so critically ill that they must be weaned from mechanical ventilation in addition to early rehabilitative treatment. The German Society for Neurorehabilitation (DGNR) carried out a survey and asked neurological weaning units to provide information on structural characteristics of the facility, including personnel and technical resources and the number of cases and outcome based on anonymous data. In total 36 weaning units from 11 federal states with a total of 496 beds participated in the survey. From 2516 weaning cases documented in 2019, 2097 (83.3%) could primarily be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation and only 120 (4.8%) had to be discharged with home ventilation. The mortality in this sample was 11.0% (n = 276). The results of the survey demonstrate that prolonged weaning during early neurological and neurosurgical rehabilitation is an important and effective component of healthcare provision for critically ill patients in Germany.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and aphasia among survivors is common. Current speech and language therapy (SLT) strategies have only limited effectiveness in improving aphasia. A possible adjunct to SLT for improving SLT outcomes might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability and hence to improve aphasia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tDCS for improving aphasia in people who have had a stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2018), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library, June 2018), MEDLINE (1948 to June 2018), Embase (1980 to June 2018), CINAHL (1982 to June 2018), AMED (1985 to June 2018), Science Citation Index (1899 to June 2018), and seven additional databases. We also searched trial registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials (from which we only analysed the first period as a parallel group design) comparing tDCS versus control in adults with aphasia due to stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. If necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 trials involving 421 participants in the qualitative synthesis. Three studies with 112 participants used formal outcome measures for our primary outcome measure of functional communication - that is, measuring aphasia in a real-life communicative setting. There was no evidence of an effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.55; P = 0.37; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence; inverse variance method with random-effects model; higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS; moderate quality of evidence). At follow-up, there also was no evidence of an effect (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.58; P = 0.55; 80 participants ; 2 studies; I² = 0%; very low quality of evidence; higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS; moderate quality of evidence).For our secondary outcome measure, accuracy in naming nouns at the end of intervention, there was evidence of an effect (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.66; P = 0.0005; I² = 0%; 298 participants; 11 studies; inverse variance method with random-effects model; higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS; moderate quality of evidence). There was an effect for the accuracy in naming nouns at follow-up (SMD 0.87, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.48; P = 0.006; 80 participants; 2 studies; I² = 32%; low quality of evidence); however the results were not statistically significant in our sensitivity analysis regarding the assumptions of the underlying correlation coefficient for imputing missing standard deviations of change scores. There was no evidence of an effect regarding accuracy in naming verbs post intervention (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.06; P = 0.67; I² = 0%; 21 participants; 3 studies; very low quality of evidence). We found no studies examining the effect of tDCS on cognition in people with aphasia after stroke. We did not find reported serious adverse events and the proportion of dropouts and adverse events was comparable between groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; P = 0.19; I² = 0%; Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model; 345 participants; 15 studies; low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no evidence of the effectiveness of tDCS (anodal tDCS, cathodal tDCS and Dual-tDCS) versus control (sham tDCS) for improving functional communication in people with aphasia after stroke (low quality of evidence). However, there is limited evidence that tDCS may improve naming performance in naming nouns (moderate quality of evidence), but not verbs (very low quality of evidence) at the end of the intervention period and possibly also at follow-up. Further methodologically rigorous RCTs with adequate sample size calculation are needed in this area to determine the effectiveness of this intervention. Data on functional communication and on adverse events should routinely be collected and presented in further publications as well as data at follow-up. Further study on the relationship between language/aphasia and cognition may be required, and improved cognitive assessments for patients with aphasia developed, prior to the use of tDCS to directly target cognition in aphasia. Authors should state total values at post-intervention as well as their corresponding change scores with standard deviations.

[Mechanical ventilation in neurological organizational units in Germany]. / Beatmung in neurologischen Organisationseinheiten in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is provided for neurological patients in the following settings: in neurointensive care units, in centers providing weaning and early rehabilitation and in home mechanical ventilation. In the last decade there has been a sharp rise in treatment and bed capacities for mechanically ventilated neurological patients in specialized centers in Germany in the areas of weaning and neurological neurosurgical early rehabilitation of ventilated patients. Neither the number of beds nor details about structures in these centers with respect to bed capacity, personnel and qualifications, equipment, treatment methods and concepts are known. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this survey was to generate detailed numbers regarding structural criteria of specialized centers for mechanically ventilated neurology patients, regarding hospital beds, technical infrastructure, personnel and qualifications as well as treatment methods and concepts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey with 48 questions on the type and size of the institution, structural criteria, equipment and personnel was developed and supported by the German Society for Neurology (DGN), the German Interdisciplinary Society of Out-of-Hospital Ventilation (DIGAB) and the German Society of Neurorehabilitation (DGNR). RESULTS: A total of 63 centers took part in the survey and reported a total of 687 beds for mechanically ventilated neurological patients. Furthermore, they reported complex structures regarding personnel and qualifications, medical devices, methods and concepts but neurophysiological electrophysiology was the only technical method provided in all centers. Of the institutions 49% (n = 27/55) provided the initiation of home mechanical ventilation, 18% (n = 18/55) provided inpatient control of home mechanical ventilation, 9% (n = 5/55) had an outpatient department for home mechanical ventilation and 18% (n = 10/55) extracted data from home ventilators. CONCLUSION: Mechanical ventilation in neurological units offers vast and complex treatment and bed capacities for severely ill patients in Germany. The structures are inhomogeneous and a consensus on specific criteria should be established. This is especially true for the treatment of patients needing out-of-hospital mechanical ventilation, also with respect to a possible weaning in the long-term duration of the disease.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2018), Embase (1980 to January 2018), CINAHL (1982 to January 2018), AMED (1985 to January 2018), SPORTDiscus (1949 to January 2018), PEDro (searched February 2018), Compendex (1972 to January 2018), and Inspec (1969 to January 2018). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 trials (involving 1619 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.52, P = 0.0005; I² = 59%; 24 studies, 957 participants, high-quality evidence), arm function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%, 41 studies, 1452 participants, high-quality evidence), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, P = 0.003, I² = 76%, 23 studies, 826 participants, high-quality evidence). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant dropout (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.93, I² = 0%, 45 studies, 1619 participants, high-quality evidence), and adverse events were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution although the quality of the evidence was high, because there were variations between the trials in: the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; participant characteristics; and measurements used.

Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Mirror therapy is used to improve motor function after stroke. During mirror therapy, a mirror is placed in the person's midsagittal plane, thus reflecting movements of the non-paretic side as if it were the affected side. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the effectiveness of mirror therapy compared with no treatment, placebo or sham therapy, or other treatments for improving motor function and motor impairment after stroke. We also aimed to assess the effects of mirror therapy on activities of daily living, pain, and visuospatial neglect. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro (last searched 16 August 2017). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, researchers and experts in our field of study. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised cross-over trials comparing mirror therapy with any control intervention for people after stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials based on the inclusion criteria, documented the methodological quality, assessed risks of bias in the included studies, and extracted data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables, and as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 62 studies with a total of 1982 participants that compared mirror therapy with other interventions. Of these, 57 were randomised controlled trials and five randomised cross-over trials. Participants had a mean age of 59 years (30 to 73 years). Mirror therapy was provided three to seven times a week, between 15 and 60 minutes for each session for two to eight weeks (on average five times a week, 30 minutes a session for four weeks).When compared with all other interventions, we found moderate-quality evidence that mirror therapy has a significant positive effect on motor function (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; 1173 participants; 36 studies) and motor impairment (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.66; 1292 participants; 39 studies). However, effects on motor function are influenced by the type of control intervention. Additionally, based on moderate-quality evidence, mirror therapy may improve activities of daily living (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.65; 622 participants; 19 studies). We found low-quality evidence for a significant positive effect on pain (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.11; 248 participants; 6 studies) and no clear effect for improving visuospatial neglect (SMD 1.06, 95% CI -0.10 to 2.23; 175 participants; 5 studies). No adverse effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate evidence for the effectiveness of mirror therapy for improving upper extremity motor function, motor impairment, activities of daily living, and pain, at least as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation for people after stroke. Major limitations are small sample sizes and lack of reporting of methodological details, resulting in uncertain evidence quality.

Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Electromechanical- and robotic-assisted gait-training devices are used in rehabilitation and might help to improve walking after stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of automated electromechanical- and robotic-assisted gait-training devices for improving walking after stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE in Ovid (1950 to 15 August 2016), Embase (1980 to 15 August 2016), CINAHL (1982 to 15 August 2016), AMED (1985 to 15 August 2016), Web of Science (1899 to 16 August 2016), SPORTDiscus (1949 to 15 September 2012), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (searched 16 August 2016), and the engineering databases COMPENDEX (1972 to 16 November 2012) and Inspec (1969 to 26 August 2016). We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted authors in an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled cross-over trials in people over the age of 18 years diagnosed with stroke of any severity, at any stage, in any setting, evaluating electromechanical- and robotic-assisted gait training versus normal care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants walking independently at follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 trials involving 1472 participants in this review update. Electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy increased the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (odds ratio (random effects) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 2.71; P < 0.001; I² = 8%; moderate-quality evidence) but did not significantly increase walking velocity (mean difference (MD) 0.04 m/s, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09; P = 0.08; I² = 65%; low-quality evidence) or walking capacity (MD 5.84 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI -16.73 to 28.40; P = 0.61; I² = 53%; very low-quality evidence). The results must be interpreted with caution because 1) some trials investigated people who were independent in walking at the start of the study, 2) we found variations between the trials with respect to devices used and duration and frequency of treatment, and 3) some trials included devices with functional electrical stimulation. Our planned subgroup analysis suggested that people in the acute phase may benefit, but people in the chronic phase may not benefit from electromechanical-assisted gait training. Post hoc analysis showed that people who are non-ambulatory at intervention onset may benefit, but ambulatory people may not benefit from this type of training. Post hoc analysis showed no differences between the types of devices used in studies regarding ability to walk, but significant differences were found between devices in terms of walking velocity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People who receive electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy after stroke are more likely to achieve independent walking than people who receive gait training without these devices. We concluded that seven patients need to be treated to prevent one dependency in walking. Specifically, people in the first three months after stroke and those who are not able to walk seem to benefit most from this type of intervention. The role of the type of device is still not clear. Further research should consist of large definitive pragmatic phase III trials undertaken to address specific questions about the most effective frequency and duration of electromechanical-assisted gait training as well as how long any benefit may last.

Elucidation of adsorption processes at the surface of Pt(331) model electrocatalysts in acidic aqueous media.

The Pt(331) surface has long been known to be the most active pure metal electrocatalyst for the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) in acidic media. Its activity is often higher than those known for the Pt-based alloys towards ORR, being comparable with the most active Pt3Ni(111), Pt3Y or Pt5Gd, and being more active than e.g. polycrystalline Pt3Ni. Multiple active sites at this surface offer adsorption energies which are close to the optimal binding energy with respect to the main ORR intermediates; nevertheless, the exact location of these sites is still not clear. Taking into account the unique surface geometry of Pt(331), some adsorbates (including some oxygenated ORR-intermediates) should also contribute to the electronic structure of the neighbouring catalytic centres. However, the experimental elucidation of the specific adsorption of oxygenated species at this surface appears to be a non-trivial task. Such information holds the keys to the understanding of the high activity of this material and would enable the rational design of nanostructured ORR catalysts even without alloying. In this work, the electrified Pt(331)/electrolyte interface has been characterised using cyclic voltammetry (CV) combined with potentiodynamic electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (PDEIS) in 0.1 M HClO4 solutions. The systems were studied in the potential region between 0.05 V and 1.0 V vs. RHE, where the adsorption of *H, *OH and *O species is possible in both O2-free and O2-saturated electrolytes. Our CV and PDEIS results support the hypothesis that in contrast to Pt(111), many Pt(331) surface sites are likely blocked by *O species at the polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell benchmark potential of 0.9 V (RHE). We propose a model illustrated by simplified adsorbate structures at different electrode potentials, which is, however, able to explain the voltammetric and impedance data, and which is in good agreement with previously reported electrocatalytic measurements.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) is a neurodegenerative disorder, with the severity of the disability usually increasing with disease duration. IPD affects patients' health-related quality of life, disability, and impairment. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving outcomes in patients with IPD, but a possible adjunct to rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in IPD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of tDCS in improving motor and non-motor symptoms in people with IPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (until February 2016): the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library ; 2016 , Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Rehabdata, and Inspec. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we searched trial registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials that compared tDCS versus control in patients with IPD for improving health-related quality of life , disability, and impairment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality (JM and MP) and extracted data (BE and JM). If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials with a total of 137 participants. We found two studies with 45 participants examining the effects of tDCS compared to control (sham tDCS) on our primary outcome measure, impairment, as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). There was very low quality evidence for no effect of tDCS on change in global UPDRS score ( mean difference (MD) -7.10 %, 95% confidence interval (CI -19.18 to 4.97; P = 0.25, I² = 21%, random-effects model). However, there was evidence of an effect on UPDRS part III motor subsection score at the end of the intervention phase (MD -14.43%, 95% CI -24.68 to -4.18; P = 0.006, I² = 2%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence). One study with 25 participants measured the reduction in off and on time with dyskinesia, but there was no evidence of an effect (MD 0.10 hours, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.34; P = 0.41, I² = 0%, random-effects model; and MD 0.00 hours, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; P = 1, I² = 0%, random- effects model, respectively; very low quality evidence).Two trials with a total of 41 participants measured gait speed using measures of timed gait at the end of the intervention phase, revealing no evidence of an effect ( standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.50, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.18; P = 0.14, I² = 11%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence). Another secondary outcome was health-related quality of life and we found one study with 25 participants reporting on the physical health and mental health aspects of health-related quality of life (MD 1.00 SF-12 score, 95% CI -5.20 to 7.20; I² = 0%, inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence; and MD 1.60 SF-12 score, 95% CI -5.08 to 8.28; I² = 0%, inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence, respectively). We found no study examining the effects of tDCS for improving activities of daily living. In two of six studies, dropouts , adverse events, or deaths occurring during the intervention phase were reported. There was insufficient evidence that dropouts , adverse effects, or deaths were higher with intervention (risk difference (RD) 0.04, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.12; P = 0.40, I² = 0%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence).We found one trial with a total of 16 participants examining the effects of tDCS plus movement therapy compared to control (sham tDCS) plus movement therapy on our secondary outcome, gait speed at the end of the intervention phase, revealing no evidence of an effect (MD 0.05 m/s, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.25; inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence). We found no evidence of an effect regarding differences in dropouts and adverse effects between intervention and control groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.21; Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of tDCS for reducing off time ( when the symptoms are not controlled by the medication) and on time with dyskinesia ( time that symptoms are controlled but the person still experiences involuntary muscle movements ) , and for improving health- related quality of life, disability, and impairment in patients with IPD. Evidence of very low quality indicates no difference in dropouts and adverse events between tDCS and control groups.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning, in people after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADLs) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, but a possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve ADL performance, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tDCS on ADLs, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to February 2015), EMBASE (1980 to February 2015), CINAHL (1982 to February 2015), AMED (1985 to February 2015), Science Citation Index (1899 to February 2015) and four additional databases. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADLs and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADLs, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias (JM and MP) and extracted data (BE and JM). If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies involving a total of 748 participants aged above 18 with acute, postacute or chronic ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. We also identified 55 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes.We found nine studies with 396 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADLs after stroke. We found evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.44; inverse variance method with random-effects model; moderate quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADLs at the end of follow-up, and found improved ADL performance (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; inverse variance method with random-effects model; moderate quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis including only trials of good methodological quality.One of our secondary outcome measures was upper extremity function: 12 trials with a total of 431 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period, revealing no evidence of an effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.50 for studies presenting absolute values (low quality evidence) and SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.51 to 1.15 (low quality evidence) for studies presenting change values; inverse variance method with random-effects model). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified four studies with a total of 187 participants (absolute values) that showed no evidence of an effect (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.50; inverse variance method with random-effects model; low quality evidence). Ten studies with 313 participants reported outcome data for muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but in the corresponding meta-analysis there was no evidence of an effect. Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect.In six of 23 studies (26%), dropouts, adverse events or deaths that occurred during the intervention period were reported, and the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model; low quality evidence; analysis based only on studies that reported either on dropouts, or on adverse events, or on both). However, this effect may be underestimated due to reporting bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the moment, evidence of very low to moderate quality is available on the effectiveness of tDCS (anodal/cathodal/dual) versus control (sham/any other intervention) for improving ADL performance after stroke. However, there are many ongoing randomised trials that could change the quality of evidence in the future. Future studies should particularly engage those who may benefit most from tDCS after stroke and in the effects of tDCS on upper and lower limb function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect). Dropouts and adverse events should be routinely monitored and presented as secondary outcomes. They should also address methodological issues by adhering to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

Short-term functional adaptation of aquaporin-1 surface expression in the proximal tubule, a component of glomerulotubular balance.

Transepithelial water flow across the renal proximal tubule is mediated predominantly by aquaporin-1 (AQP1). Along this nephron segment, luminal delivery and transepithelial reabsorption are directly coupled, a phenomenon called glomerulotubular balance. We hypothesized that the surface expression of AQP1 is regulated by fluid shear stress, contributing to this effect. Consistent with this finding, we found that the abundance of AQP1 in brush border apical and basolateral membranes was augmented >2-fold by increasing luminal perfusion rates in isolated, microperfused proximal tubules for 15 minutes. Mouse kidneys with diminished endocytosis caused by a conditional deletion of megalin or the chloride channel ClC-5 had constitutively enhanced AQP1 abundance in the proximal tubule brush border membrane. In AQP1-transfected, cultured proximal tubule cells, fluid shear stress or the addition of cyclic nucleotides enhanced AQP1 surface expression and concomitantly diminished its ubiquitination. These effects were also associated with an elevated osmotic water permeability. In sum, we have shown that luminal surface expression of AQP1 in the proximal tubule brush border membrane is regulated in response to flow. Cellular trafficking, endocytosis, an intact endosomal compartment, and controlled protein stability are the likely prerequisites for AQP1 activation by enhanced tubular fluid shear stress, serving to maintain glomerulotubular balance.

Stress disorders following prolonged critical illness in survivors of severe sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the frequency of acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder in chronically critically ill patients with a specific focus on severe sepsis, to classify different courses of stress disorders from 4 weeks to 6 months after transfer from acute care hospital to postacute rehabilitation, and to identify patients at risk by examining the relationship between clinical, demographic, and psychological variables and stress disorder symptoms. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort study, three assessment times within 4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after transfer to postacute rehabilitation. SETTING: Patients were consecutively enrolled in a large rehabilitation hospital (Clinic Bavaria, Kreischa, Germany) admitted for ventilator weaning from acute care hospitals. PATIENTS: We included 90 patients with admission diagnosis critical illness polyneuropathy or critical illness myopathy with or without severe sepsis, age between 18 and 70 years with a length of ICU stay greater than 5 days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder were diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, criteria by a trained and experienced clinical psychologist using a semistructured clinical interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We further administered the Acute Stress Disorder Scale and the Posttraumatic Symptom Scale-10 to assess symptoms of acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. Three percent of the patients had an acute stress disorder diagnosis 4 weeks after transfer to postacute rehabilitation. Posttraumatic stress disorder was found in 7% of the patients at 3-month follow-up and in 12% after 6 months, respectively. Eighteen percent of the patients showed a delayed onset of posttraumatic stress disorder. Sepsis turned out to be a significant predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A regular screening of post-ICU patients after discharge from hospital should be an integral part of aftercare management. The underlying mechanisms of severe sepsis in the development of posttraumatic stress disorder need further examination.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and aphasia among survivors is common. Current speech and language therapy (SLT) strategies have only limited effectiveness in improving aphasia. A possible adjunct to SLT for improving SLT outcomes might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability and hence to improve aphasia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tDCS for improving aphasia in people who have had a stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, November 2014), MEDLINE (1948 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), CINAHL (1982 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), Science Citation Index (1899 to November 2014) and seven additional databases. We also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials (from which we only analysed the first period as a parallel group design) comparing tDCS versus control in adults with aphasia due to stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. If necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials involving 136 participants for qualitative assessment. None of the included studies used any formal outcome measure for our primary outcome measure of functional communication - that is, measuring aphasia in a real-life communicative setting. We did a meta-analysis of six trials with 66 participants of correct picture naming as our secondary outcome measure, which demonstrated that tDCS may not enhance SLT outcomes (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.92; P = 0.19; I² = 0%; inverse variance method with random-effects model; with a higher SMD reflecting benefit from tDCS). We found no studies examining the effect of tDCS on cognition in stroke patients with aphasia. We did not find reported adverse events and the proportion of dropouts was comparable between groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no evidence of the effectiveness of tDCS (anodal tDCS, cathodal tDCS and bihemispheric tDCS) versus control (sham tDCS) for improving functional communication, language impairment and cognition in people with aphasia after stroke. Further RCTs are needed in this area to determine the effectiveness of this intervention. Authors of future research should adhere to the CONSORT Statement.

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), AMED (1985 to March 2015), SPORTDiscus (1949 to March 2015), PEDro (searched April 2015), Compendex (1972 to March 2015), and Inspec (1969 to March 2015). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 trials (involving 1160 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.64, P = 0.005, I² = 62%), arm function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.70, P = 0.04, I² = 72%), but the quality of the evidence was low to very low. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant drop-out (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03, P = 0.84, I² = 0%) with moderate-quality evidence, and adverse events were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm and hand training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm and hand function, and arm and hand muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because the quality of the evidence was low to very low, and there were variations between the trials in the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; and participant characteristics.

Treadmill training for patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Treadmill training is used in rehabilitation and is described as improving gait parameters of patients with Parkinson's disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of treadmill training in improving the gait of patients with Parkinson's disease and the acceptability and safety of this type of therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Specialised Register (see Review Group details for more information) (last searched September 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2014), and EMBASE (1980 to September 2014). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, and checked reference lists (last searched September 2014). We contacted trialists, experts and researchers in the field and manufacturers of commercial devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing treadmill training with no treadmill training in patients with Parkinson's disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables and relative risk differences (RD) for dichotomous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 trials (633 participants) in this update of this review. Treadmill training improved gait speed (MD = 0.09 m/s; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.14; P = 0.001; I(2) = 24%; moderate quality of evidence), stride length (MD = 0.05 metres; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%; low quality of evidence), but walking distance (MD = 48.9 metres; 95% CI -1.32 to 99.14; P = 0.06; I(2) = 91%; very low quality of evidence) and cadence did not improve (MD = 2.16 steps/minute; 95% CI -0.13 to 4.46; P = 0.07; I(2) = 28%; low quality of evidence) at the end of study. Treadmill training did not increase the risk of patients dropping out from intervention (RD = -0.02; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02; P = 0.32; I(2) = 13%; moderate quality of evidence). Adverse events were not reported in included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update of our systematic review provides evidence from eighteen trials with moderate to low risk of bias that the use of treadmill training in patients with PD may improve clinically relevant gait parameters such as gait speed and stride length (moderate and low quality of evidence, respectively). This apparent benefit for patients is, however, not supported by all secondary variables (e.g. cadence and walking distance). Comparing physiotherapy and treadmill training against other alternatives in the treatment of gait hypokinesia such as physiotherapy without treadmill training this type of therapy seems to be more beneficial in practice without increased risk. The gain seems small to moderate clinically relevant. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because it is not known how long these improvements may last and some studies used no intervention in the control group and underlie some risk of bias. Additionally the results were heterogenous and we found variations between the trials in patient characteristics, the duration and amount of training, and types of treadmill training applied.