Health-related quality of life and participation after inpatient rehabilitation of sepsis survivors with severe sequelae: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe health-related quality of life and participation after rehabilitation of severely affected sepsis survivors. DESIGN: Cohort study. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: Patients with severe sequelae after sepsis treated in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation pathway were included. METHODS: Patient characteristics at the time of diagnosis, and the outcome 3 months after discharge from rehabilitation are described. At that time, health-related quality of life, social participation, and the rate of living at home were measured. RESULTS: Of the 498 patients enrolled, 100 severely impaired patients were transferred for a multidisciplinary rehabilitation approach. Fifty-five of them were followed up at 3 months. Descriptive and inference statistics showed that 69% were living at home with or without care. Health-related quality of life and participation scores were 0.64 ± 0.32 for the EQ-5D utility index and 54.98 ± 24.97 for the Reintegration of Normal Living Index. A multivariate regression model explaining health-related quality of life at 3 months included age, lower limb strength, and walking ability during rehabilitation (r2 = 0.5511). Participation at 3 months was explained by age, body mass index, lower limb strength, and duration of tracheal intubation (r2 = 0.6229). CONCLUSION: Patients who have experienced serious sepsis with severe sequelae can achieve a moderate level of quality of life and participation within a multidisciplinary pathway.

Sensitive Identification of Asymmetries and Neuromuscular Deficits in Lower Limb Function in Early Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: In the early stages of multiple sclerosis (MS), there are no objective sensitive functional assessments to identify and quantify early subclinical neuromuscular deficits and lower limb strength asymmetries during complex movements. Single-countermovement jumps (SLCMJ), a maximum single leg vertical jump, on a force plate allow functional evaluation of unilateral lower limb performance in performance diagnostics and could therefore provide early results on asymmetries in MS. OBJECTIVE: Objective evaluation of early lower limb neuromuscular deficits and asymmetries in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) using SLCMJ on a force plate. METHODS: A study was conducted with pwMS (N = 126) and healthy controls (N = 97). All participants performed 3 maximal SLCMJs on a force plate. Temporal, kinetic, and power jump parameters were collected. The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was performed on all participants. A repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age, Body-Mass-Index, and gender as covariates was used. RESULTS: PwMS with normal muscle strength according to the manual muscle tests showed significantly reduced SLCMJ performance compared to HC. In both groups, jumping performance differed significantly between the dominant and non-dominant leg, with higher effect size for pwMS. A significant interaction effect between leg dominance and group was found for propulsive time, where the pwMS showed an even higher difference between the dominant and non-dominant leg compared to HC. Furthermore, there was a significant small correlation between leg asymmetries and EDSS in pwMS. CONCLUSION: The study shows that the SLCMJ on a force plate is suitable for the early detection of subclinical lower limb neuromuscular deficits and strength asymmetries in MS.

Occupational performance one to five years after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the self-perceived occupational performance of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and examine the associations between aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage characteristics, socio-demographic factors and self-perceived problems. DESIGN: A single-centre cohort study design was combined with a cross-sectional analysis. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: All patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage who were capable of performing activities of daily living before discharge from hospital were included. METHODS: The assessment of the patient's occupational performance followed a patient-reported outcome measure 1 to 5 years after the subarachnoid haemorrhage. Secondary outcomes comprised scores from the Glasgow Outcome Scale, modified Rankin Scale, Fisher Scale, World Federation of Neurological Societies grading system, vasospasm, and hydrocephalus. RESULTS: Of the 62 patients included in the study (66% female, mean age 55 years), 79% reported experiencing issues with occupational performance, most frequently with regard to leisure and productivity. The problems reported were significantly associated with vasospasm (p = 0.021) and the Glasgow Outcome Scale score (p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Even patients who have had aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage with a favourable outcome may encounter occupational performance difficulties for several years. It is vital to use patient-reported outcome measures to identify these issues. This research enhances our comprehension of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage patients' self-perceived occupational performance and the factors that affect their performance.

Standardized measurement of balance and mobility post-stroke: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

BACKGROUND: Mobility is a key priority for stroke survivors. Worldwide consensus of standardized outcome instruments for measuring mobility recovery after stroke is an essential milestone to optimize the quality of stroke rehabilitation and recovery studies and to enable data synthesis across trials. METHODS: Using a standardized methodology, which involved convening of 13 worldwide experts in the field of mobility rehabilitation, consensus was established through an a priori defined survey-based approach followed by group discussions. The group agreed on balance- and mobility-related definitions and recommended a core set of outcome measure instruments for lower extremity motor function, balance and mobility, biomechanical metrics, and technologies for measuring quality of movement. RESULTS: Selected measures included the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment lower extremity subscale for motor function, the Trunk Impairment Scale for sitting balance, and the Mini Balance Evaluation System Test (Mini-BESTest) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) for standing balance. The group recommended the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC, 0-5) for walking independence, the 10-meter Walk Test (10 mWT) for walking speed, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT) for walking endurance, and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for complex walking. An FAC score of less than three should be used to determine the need for an additional standing test (FAC < 3, add BBS to Mini-BESTest) or the feasibility to assess walking (FAC < 3, 10 mWT, 6 MWT, and DGI are "not testable"). In addition, recommendations are given for prioritized kinetic and kinematic metrics to be investigated that measure recovery of movement quality of standing balance and walking, as well as for assessment protocols and preferred equipment to be used. CONCLUSIONS: The present recommendations of measures, metrics, technology, and protocols build on previous consensus meetings of the International Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Alliance to guide the research community to improve the validity and comparability between stroke recovery and rehabilitation studies as a prerequisite for building high-quality, standardized "big data" sets. Ultimately, these recommendations could lead to high-quality, participant-specific data sets to aid the progress toward precision medicine in stroke rehabilitation.

Standardized measurement of balance and mobility post-stroke: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

BACKGROUND: Mobility is a key priority for stroke survivors. Worldwide consensus of standardized outcome instruments for measuring mobility recovery after stroke is an essential milestone to optimize the quality of stroke rehabilitation and recovery studies and to enable data synthesis across trials. METHODS: Using a standardized methodology, which involved convening of 13 worldwide experts in the field of mobility rehabilitation, consensus was established through an a priori defined survey-based approach followed by group discussions. The group agreed on balance- and mobility-related definitions and recommended a core set of outcome measure instruments for lower extremity motor function, balance and mobility, biomechanical metrics, and technologies for measuring quality of movement. RESULTS: Selected measures included the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment lower extremity subscale for motor function, the Trunk Impairment Scale for sitting balance, and the Mini Balance Evaluation System Test (Mini-BESTest) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) for standing balance. The group recommended the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC, 0-5) for walking independence, the 10-meter Walk Test (10 mWT) for walking speed, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT) for walking endurance, and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for complex walking. An FAC score of less than three should be used to determine the need for an additional standing test (FAC < 3, add BBS to Mini-BESTest) or the feasibility to assess walking (FAC < 3, 10 mWT, 6 MWT, and DGI are "not testable"). In addition, recommendations are given for prioritized kinetic and kinematic metrics to be investigated that measure recovery of movement quality of standing balance and walking, as well as for assessment protocols and preferred equipment to be used. CONCLUSIONS: The present recommendations of measures, metrics, technology, and protocols build on previous consensus meetings of the International Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Alliance to guide the research community to improve the validity and comparability between stroke recovery and rehabilitation studies as a prerequisite for building high-quality, standardized "big data" sets. Ultimately, these recommendations could lead to high-quality, participant-specific data sets to aid the progress toward precision medicine in stroke rehabilitation.

Opsoclonus-Myoclonus-Ataxia Syndrome Due to Covid-19.

Opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome (OMS) as a rare neurological encephalopathic entity associated with non-specific infections or cancer processes has been repeatedly described in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We report a case of a 53-year-old man with SARS-CoV-2 infection, who developed clinical features of opsoclonus-myoclonus ataxia syndrome including cognitive impairments with a prolonged course of disease. Of particular note, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis revealed the production of myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies, suggesting an underlying neuroimmunological mechanism associated with infection with the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Trunk training following stroke.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of post-stroke trunk training. Findings suggest that trunk training improves trunk function and activity or the execution of a task or action by an individual. But it is unclear what effect trunk training has on daily life activities, quality of life, and other outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of trunk training after stroke on activities of daily living (ADL), trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life when comparing with both dose-matched as non-dose-matched control groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 25 October 2021. We searched trial registries to identify additional relevant published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. We hand searched the bibliographies of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials comparing trunk training versus non-dose-matched or dose-matched control therapy including adults (18 years or older) with either ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. Outcome measures of trials included ADL, trunk function, arm-hand function or activity, standing balance, leg function, walking ability, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two main analyses were carried out. The first analysis included trials where the therapy duration of control intervention was non-dose-matched with the therapy duration of the experimental group and the second analysis where there was comparison with a dose-matched control intervention (equal therapy duration in both the control as in the experimental group).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 68 trials with a total of 2585 participants. In the analysis of the non-dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with different training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we could see that trunk training had a positive effect on ADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.24; P < 0.001; 5 trials; 283 participants; very low-certainty evidence), trunk function (SMD 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.71; P < 0.001; 14 trials, 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.15; P = 0.006; 2 trials, 74 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.009 to 1.59; P = 0.03; 1 trial, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 410 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.63; P < 0.001; 1 trial, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; P < 0.001; 11 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.89; P = 0.01; 2 trials, 108 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-dose-matched trunk training led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio: 7.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 400.89; 6 trials, 201 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In the analysis of the dose-matched groups (pooling of all trials with equal training duration in the experimental as in the control intervention), we saw that trunk training had a positive effect on trunk function (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; P < 0.001; 36 trials, 1217 participants; very low-certainty evidence), standing balance (SMD 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; P < 0.001; 22 trials, 917 participants; very low-certainty evidence), leg function (SMD 1.57, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.87; P < 0.001; 4 trials, 254 participants; very low-certainty evidence), walking ability (SMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; P < 0.001; 19 trials, 535 participants; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; P < 0.001; 2 trials, 111 participants; low-certainty evidence), but not for ADL (SMD 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.37; P = 0.48; 9 trials; 229 participants; very low-certainty evidence), arm-hand function (SMD 0.76, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.70; P = 0.11; 1 trial, 19 participants; low-certainty evidence), arm-hand activity (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.56; P = 0.38; 3 trials, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Trunk training also led to no difference for the outcome serious adverse events (odds ratio (OR): 7.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 372.38; 10 trials, 381 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time post stroke led to a significant subgroup difference for standing balance (P < 0.001) in non-dose-matched therapy. In non-dose-matched therapy, different trunk therapy approaches had a significant effect on ADL (< 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001) and standing balance (< 0.001). When participants received dose-matched therapy, analysis of subgroup differences showed that the trunk therapy approach had a significant effect on ADL (P = 0.001), trunk function (P < 0.001), arm-hand activity (P < 0.001), standing balance (P = 0.002), and leg function (P = 0.002). Also for dose-matched therapy, subgroup analysis for time post stroke resulted in a significant difference for the outcomes standing balance (P < 0.001), walking ability (P = 0.003) and leg function (P < 0.001), time post stroke significantly modified the effect of intervention.  Core-stability trunk (15 trials), selective-trunk (14 trials) and unstable-trunk (16 trials) training approaches were mostly applied in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that trunk training as part of rehabilitation improves ADL, trunk function, standing balance, walking ability, upper and lower limb function, and quality of life in people after stroke. Core-stability, selective-, and unstable-trunk training were the trunk training approaches mostly applied in the included trials. When considering only trials with a low risk of bias, results were mostly confirmed, with very low to moderate certainty, depending on the outcome.

Characteristics and outcomes of sepsis patients with and without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe and compare clinical characteristics and outcomes in critically ill septic patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: From February 2020 to March 2021, patients from surgical and medical ICUs at the University Hospital Dresden were screened for sepsis. Patient characteristics and outcomes were assessed descriptively. Patient survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Associations between in-hospital mortality and risk factors were modeled using robust Poisson regression, which facilitates derivation of adjusted relative risks. RESULTS: In 177 ICU patients treated for sepsis, COVID-19 was diagnosed and compared to 191 septic ICU patients without COVID-19. Age and sex did not differ significantly between sepsis patients with and without COVID-19, but SOFA score at ICU admission was significantly higher in septic COVID-19 patients. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with 59% compared to 29% in Non-COVID patients. Statistical analysis resulted in an adjusted relative risk for in-hospital mortality of 1.74 (95%-CI=1.35-2-24) in the presence of COVID-19 compared to other septic patients. Age, procalcitonin maximum value over 2 ng/ml, need for renal replacement therapy, need for invasive ventilation and septic shock were identified as additional risk factors for in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was identified as independent risk factor for higher in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients. The need for invasive ventilation and renal replacement therapy as well as the presence of septic shock and higher PCT should be considered to identify high-risk patients.

The effect of time spent in rehabilitation on activity limitation and impairment after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke affects millions of people every year and is a leading cause of disability, resulting in significant financial cost and reduction in quality of life. Rehabilitation after stroke aims to reduce disability by facilitating recovery of impairment, activity, or participation. One aspect of stroke rehabilitation that may affect outcomes is the amount of time spent in rehabilitation, including minutes provided, frequency (i.e. days per week of rehabilitation), and duration (i.e. time period over which rehabilitation is provided). Effect of time spent in rehabilitation after stroke has been explored extensively in the literature, but findings are inconsistent. Previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses have included studies that differ not only in the amount provided, but also type of rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of 1. more time spent in the same type of rehabilitation on activity measures in people with stroke; 2. difference in total rehabilitation time (in minutes) on recovery of activity in people with stroke; and 3. rehabilitation schedule on activity in terms of: a. average time (minutes) per week undergoing rehabilitation, b. frequency (number of sessions per week) of rehabilitation, and c. total duration of rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and five trials registers to June 2021. We searched reference lists of identified studies, contacted key authors, and undertook reference searching using Web of Science Cited Reference Search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with stroke that compared different amounts of time spent, greater than zero, in rehabilitation (any non-pharmacological, non-surgical intervention aimed to improve activity after stroke). Studies varied only in the amount of time in rehabilitation between experimental and control conditions. Primary outcome was activities of daily living (ADLs); secondary outcomes were activity measures of upper and lower limbs, motor impairment measures of upper and lower limbs, and serious adverse events (SAE)/death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and assessed certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For continuous outcomes using different scales, we calculated pooled standardised mean difference (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS: The quantitative synthesis of this review comprised 21 parallel RCTs, involving analysed data from 1412 participants.  Time in rehabilitation varied between studies. Minutes provided per week were 90 to 1288. Days per week of rehabilitation were three to seven. Duration of rehabilitation was two weeks to six months. Thirteen studies provided upper limb rehabilitation, five general rehabilitation, two mobilisation training, and one lower limb training. Sixteen studies examined participants in the first six months following stroke; the remaining five included participants more than six months poststroke. Comparison of stroke severity or level of impairment was limited due to variations in measurement. The risk of bias assessment suggests there were issues with the methodological quality of the included studies. There were 76 outcome-level risk of bias assessments: 15 low risk, 37 some concerns, and 24 high risk. When comparing groups that spent more time versus less time in rehabilitation immediately after intervention, we found no difference in rehabilitation for ADL outcomes (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; P = 0.09; I2 = 7%; 14 studies, 864 participants; very low-certainty evidence), activity measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.29; P = 0.36; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and activity measures of the lower limb (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.53; P = 0.08; I2 = 48%; 5 studies, 425 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found an effect in favour of more time in rehabilitation for motor impairment measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.58; P = 0.01; I2 = 10%; 9 studies, 287 participants; low-certainty evidence) and of the lower limb (SMD 0.71, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; P = 0.01; 1 study, 51 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no intervention-related SAEs. More time in rehabilitation did not affect the risk of SAEs/death (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.85; P = 0.68; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 379 participants; low-certainty evidence), but few studies measured these outcomes. Predefined subgroup analyses comparing studies with a larger difference of total time spent in rehabilitation between intervention groups to studies with a smaller difference found greater improvements for studies with a larger difference. This was statistically significant for ADL outcomes (P = 0.02) and activity measures of the upper limb (P = 0.04), but not for activity measures of the lower limb (P = 0.41) or motor impairment measures of the upper limb (P = 0.06). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: An increase in time spent in the same type of rehabilitation after stroke results in little to no difference in meaningful activities such as activities of daily living and activities of the upper and lower limb but a small benefit in measures of motor impairment (low- to very low-certainty evidence for all findings). If the increase in time spent in rehabilitation exceeds a threshold, this may lead to improved outcomes. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend a minimum beneficial daily amount in clinical practice. The findings of this study are limited by a lack of studies with a significant contrast in amount of additional rehabilitation provided between control and intervention groups. Large, well-designed, high-quality RCTs that measure time spent in all rehabilitation activities (not just interventional) and provide a large contrast (minimum of 1000 minutes) in amount of rehabilitation between groups would provide further evidence for effect of time spent in rehabilitation.

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.

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 aphasia after stroke: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an emerging approach for improving aphasia after stroke. However, it remains unclear what type of tDCS stimulation is most effective. Our aim was to give an overview of the evidence network regarding the efficacy and safety of tDCS and to estimate the effectiveness of the different stimulation types. METHODS: This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the following databases until 4 February 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, and four other databases. We included studies with adult people with stroke. We compared any kind of active tDCS (anodal, cathodal, or dual, that is applying anodal and cathodal tDCS concurrently) regarding improvement of our primary outcome of functional communication, versus control, after stroke. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019135696. RESULTS: We included 25 studies with 471 participants. Our NMA showed that tDCS did not improve our primary outcome, that of functional communication. There was evidence of an effect of anodal tDCS, particularly over the left inferior frontal gyrus, in improving our secondary outcome, that of performance in naming nouns (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90). There was no difference in safety between tDCS and its control interventions, measured by the number of dropouts and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Comparing different application/protocols of tDCS shows that the anodal application, particularly over the left inferior frontal gyrus, seems to be the most promising tDCS treatment option to improve performance in naming in people with stroke.

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.

High-intensity arm resistance training does not lead to better outcomes than low-intensity resistance training in patients after subacute stroke: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effects of 2 levels of intensity of arm resistance training on grip strength, arm function, activities, participation, and adverse events in patients with subacute stroke. DESIGN: A randomized controlled and preregistered trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. PATIENTS: Patients with subacute stroke and upper extremity hemiparesis. METHODS: After randomization the experimental group received a 3-week high-intensity arm resistance training (HIT). The control group completed a 3-week low-intensity arm resistance training (LIT). The primary outcome was grip strength. Secondary outcomes included the Motricity Index, Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the upper limb, Box and Block Test, Goal Attainment Scale, Modified Ashworth Scale, and adverse events. All outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 3 weeks of intervention. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients were investigated (HIT, n = 23; LIT, n = 20). All primary and secondary outcomes improved after the 3-week training, but no significant between-group differences were found. Adverse events occurred in 5% of training sessions (19/369). CONCLUSION: The results of this study did not show differential effects on any outcome of 2 forms of arm resistance training in patients with subacute stroke.

Implementation of a gait center training to improve walking ability and vital parameters in inpatient neurological rehabilitation- a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Many studies showed that robot-assisted gait training might improve walking of patients after stroke. The question remains whether patients with other neurological diagnoses can improve their ability to walk by training in a gait center. Aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the effects of a gait center training in inpatient neurological rehabilitation on walking ability. METHODS: We implemented a gait center training in addition to individual inpatient rehabilitation. Our primary outcome was walking ability based on the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC). Our secondary outcomes were vital capacity and blood pressure. We predefined subgroups of patients with ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and critical illness myopathy (CIM) and polyneuropathy (CIP). RESULTS: We included 780 patients from our inpatient rehabilitation center in our cohort study. We analyzed 329 patients with ischemic, 131 patients with hemorrhagic stroke and 74 patients with CIP/ CIM. A large number of patients were able to improve their ability to walk. At the end of rehabilitation, patients with ischemic stroke and FAC 3 = increased theirFAC scores by 5%, FAC 4 = 4% and FAC 5 = 7%. Patients with hemorrhagic stroke and FAC 3 = increased by 5%, FAC 4 = 11% and FAC 5 = 9% and patients with CIP/CIM increased by FAC 3 = 3%, FAC 4 = 22% and FAC 5 = 26%. The largest improvement in walking ability during rehabilitation had patients with a FAC = 1 at baseline who improved by a median of 1.4 FAC points (p < 0.001). After adjusting for the number of gait training sessions, the largest improvement in walking ability during rehabilitation had patients with a FAC = 0 at baseline who improved by 1.8 FAC points (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an additional gait center training may significantly improve walking ability in neurological rehabilitation.

Walking with rhythmic auditory stimulation in chronic patients after stroke: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of studies that evaluate the effects of different gait training (GT) interventions for patients after stroke in an outpatient setting. The aim of the present trial therefore was to evaluate the effects of two different outpatient GT programmes after chronic stroke. METHODS: We randomly allocated patients into two groups of either a 4-week overground GT with rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS, n = 6) of 30 min, three times a week over 4 weeks or an overground GT without RAS (GT, n = 6) with same duration and intensity. Primary outcomes were walking velocity and capacity; secondary outcomes were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and stride length before and after interventions and at 12 weeks follow-up. RESULTS: Twelve patients after stroke (nine females; mean [SD] age 67 [9] years; duration of illness 67 [69] months; all left-sided strokes) were included. Patients improved their walking velocity from baseline until the end of GT (RAS: median difference 0.05 m/s [interquartile range, IQR 0.06] and GT: 0.12 m/s [0.29]) and walking capacity (RAS: median difference 14 m [IQR 14] and GT: 41 m [79]). However, RAS and GT did not differ significantly (p = .30 and p = .30, respectively). Patients improved from baseline until the end of intervention in BBS (RAS: median difference 4 points [IQR 4] and GT: 1 point [3]) and stride length (RAS: median difference 6.3 cm [IQR 12.1] and GT: 5.5 cm [8.8]). However, BBS and stride length did not differ significantly between groups (p = .08 and p = .58, respectively). CONCLUSION: Walking with rhythmic auditory stimulation in chronic patients after stroke does not provide a beneficial effect on walking when compared with walking without rhythmic auditory stimulation.

Effect of physiotherapy on regaining independent walking in patients with intensive-care-unit-acquired muscle weakness: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe physiotherapeutic interventions used in the post-acute inpatient rehabilitation of chronic critically ill patients with intensive-care-unit-acquired muscle weakness, and to determine the influence of such interventions on patients' ability to walk. METHODS: Chronic critically ill patients with intensive-care-unit-acquired muscle weakness who were in post-acute and rehabilitation units were included in a cohort study. During post-acute rehabilitation, the patients' functional status at baseline, all daily physiotherapeutic interventions, and ability to walk were documented. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were investigated. In patients who regained walking ability, the most frequent interventions in the first 2 weeks of post-acute rehabilitation were practicing walking, sit-to-stand training, and balance training while sitting (total time per week: 48.03 (standard deviation (SD) 41.10), 20.13 (SD 21.12), and 12.37 (SD 26.95) min, respectively). The most frequent interventions in those who did not regain walking ability were passive-assistive movements, sit-to-stand training, and balance training while sitting (total time per week: 15.29 (SD 22.93), 15.15 (SD 22.75), and 14.85 (SD 16.99) min, respectively). The time spent walking increased the chance of regaining walking ability (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.017 per min walking, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that physiotherapy interventions in the rehabilitation of chronic critically ill patients with intensive-care-unit-acquired muscle weakness may stimulate walking function.

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.