RESUMEN
The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the multimodal treatment based on both resistance and endurance training for the recovery of lower limb function in post-stroke patients is more effective than unimodal treatment. Six electronic databases were searched. The included articles were firstly analysed for methodological quality and then quantitatively analysed for the following outcomes: endurance, knee-extensor muscle strength, gait speed, and aerobic capacity. The treatment effect was analysed with the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). From a total of 4439 records, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative analysis, whereas 7 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. There is a significant difference favourable to the group with multimodal treatment for knee-extensor muscle strength (SMD = 1.25; 95% CI 0.97, 1.53, I2 = 42%), both for the affected and the unaffected side. Multimodal treatments are a valid choice in the field of post-stroke rehabilitation. In particular, the combination of resistance and endurance training is useful to maximise the recovery of knee-extensor muscle strength, which in turn could be beneficial for achieving upright position and walking, allowing patients to improve independence levels in their activities of daily life.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) in systematic reviews (SRs) adheres to RoB2 guidance. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from 2019 to May 2021 to identify SRs using RoB2. We analyzed methods and results sections to see whether risk of bias was assessed at outcome measure level and applied to primary outcomes of the SR as per RoB2 guidance. The relation between SR characteristics and adequacy of RoB2 use was examined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred-eight SRs were included. We could assess adherence in 137 SRs as 12 declared using RoB2 but actually used RoB1 and 59 did not report the number of primary outcomes. The tool usage was adherent in 69.3% SRs. Considering SRs with multiple primary outcomes, adherence dropped to 28.8%. We found a positive association between RoB2 guidance adherence and the methodological quality of the reviews assessed by AMSTAR2 (p-for-trend 0.007). Multivariable regression analysis suggested journal impact factor [first quartile vs. other quartiles] was associated with RoB2 adherence (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Many SRs did not adhere to RoB2 guidance as they applied the tool at the study level rather than at the outcome measure level. Lack of adherence was more likely among low and very low quality reviews.