Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post-stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta-analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre-specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow-up. Thirty-eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD -0.0; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high-quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high-quality evidence) at the end of treatment. In the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high-quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high-quality evidence). Cognition was slightly better in the control group (MD -1.22, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.12 to 0.33; low-quality evidence). SSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, -0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high-quality evidence). One study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants). There was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence). SSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD -0.06; 95% CI -1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate-quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high-quality evidence). When all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent. There was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of outcomes at end of follow-up. Several small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk.

Fluoxetine for stroke recovery: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluoxetine, at any dose, given within the first year after stroke to patients who did not have to have mood disorders at randomization reduced disability, dependency, neurological deficits and fatigue; improved motor function, mood, and cognition at the end of treatment and follow-up, with the same number or fewer adverse effects. METHODS: Searches (from 2012) in July 2018 included databases, trials registers, reference lists, and contact with experts. Co-primary outcomes were dependence and disability. Dichotomous data were synthesized using risk ratios (RR) and continuous data using standardized mean differences (SMD). Quality was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias methods. Sensitivity analyses explored influence of study quality. RESULTS: The searches identified 3414 references of which 499 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Six new completed RCTs (n = 3710) were eligible, and were added to the seven trials identified in a 2012 Cochrane review (total: 13 trials, n = 4145). There was no difference in the proportion independent (3 trials, n = 3249, 36.6% fluoxetine vs. 36.7% control; RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.09, p = 0.99, I2 = 78%) nor in disability (7 trials n = 3404, SMD 0.05, -0.02 to 0.12 p = 0.15, I2 = 81%) at end of treatment. Fluoxetine was associated with better neurological scores and less depression. Among the four (n = 3283) high-quality RCTs, the only difference between groups was lower depression scores with fluoxetine. CONCLUSION: This class I evidence demonstrates that fluoxetine does not reduce disability and dependency after stroke but improves depression.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression and other mood disorders after stroke. The 2012 Cochrane Review of SSRIs for stroke recovery demonstrated positive effects on recovery, even in people who were not depressed at randomisation. A large trial of fluoxetine for stroke recovery (fluoxetine versus placebo under supervision) has recently been published, and it is now appropriate to update the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 16 July 2018), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, July 2018), MEDLINE (1946 to July 2018), Embase (1974 to July 2018), CINAHL (1982 July 2018), PsycINFO (1985 to July 2018), AMED (1985 to July 2018), and PsycBITE March 2012 to July 2018). We also searched grey literature and clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke survivors at any time within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, given at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. We excluded drugs with mixed pharmacological effects. The comparator was usual care or placebo. To be included, trials had to collect data on at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the trial early). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data from each trial. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 63 eligible trials recruiting 9168 participants, most of which provided data only at end of treatment and not at follow-up. There was a wide age range. About half the trials required participants to have depression to enter the trial. The duration, drug, and dose varied between trials. Only three of the included trials were at low risk of bias across the key 'Risk of bias' domains. A meta-analysis of these three trials found little or no effect of SSRI on either disability score: SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; P = 0.75; 2 studies, 2829 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or independence: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; P = 0.99; 3 studies, 3249 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We downgraded both these outcomes for imprecision. SSRIs reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.11 lower, 0.19 lower to 0.04 lower; 2 trials, 2861 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was a higher observed number of gastrointestinal side effects among participants treated with SSRIs compared to placebo (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.76; P = 0.05; 2 studies, 148 participants; moderate-quality evidence), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). For seizures there was no evidence of a substantial difference. When we included all trials in a sensitivity analysis, irrespective of risk of bias, SSRIs appeared to reduce disability scores but not dependence. One large trial (FOCUS) dominated the results. We identified several ongoing trials, including two large trials that together will recruit more than 3000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no reliable evidence that SSRIs should be used routinely to promote recovery after stroke. Meta-analysis of the trials at low risk of bias indicate that SSRIs do not improve recovery from stroke. We identified potential improvements in disability only in the analyses which included trials at high risk of bias. A further meta-analysis of large ongoing trials will be required to determine the generalisability of these findings.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised, Other-than-Placebo Controlled, Trials of Individualised Homeopathic Treatment.

BACKGROUND: This study focuses on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment (IHT) in which the control (comparator) group was other than placebo (OTP). AIMS: To determine the comparative effectiveness of IHT on health-related outcomes in adults and children for any clinical condition that has been the subject of at least one OTP-controlled trial. For each study, to assess the risk of bias and to determine whether its study attitude was predominantly 'pragmatic' or 'explanatory'. METHODS: Systematic review. For each eligible trial, published in the peer-reviewed literature up to the end of 2015, we assessed its risk of bias (internal validity) using the seven-domain Cochrane tool, and its relative pragmatic or explanatory attitude (external validity) using the 10-domain PRECIS tool. We grouped RCTs by whether they examined IHT as an alternative treatment (study design Ia), adjunctively with another intervention (design Ib), or compared with a no-intervention group (design II). For each RCT, we identified a 'main outcome measure' to use in meta-analysis: 'relative effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR; values >1 favouring homeopathy) or standardised mean difference (SMD; values < 0 favouring homeopathy). RESULTS: Eleven RCTs, representing 11 different medical conditions, were eligible for study. Five of the RCTs (four of which in design Ib) were judged to have pragmatic study attitude, two were explanatory, and four were equally pragmatic and explanatory. Ten trials were rated 'high risk of bias' overall: one of these, a pragmatic study with design Ib, had high risk of bias solely regarding participant blinding (a bias that is intrinsic to such trials); the other trial was rated 'uncertain risk of bias' overall. Eight trials had data that were extractable for analysis: for four heterogeneous trials with design Ia, the pooled OR was statistically non-significant; collectively for three clinically heterogeneous trials with design Ib, there was a statistically significant SMD favouring adjunctive IHT; in the remaining trial of design 1a, IHT was non-inferior to fluoxetine in the treatment of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality, the small number and the heterogeneity of studies, the current data preclude a decisive conclusion about the comparative effectiveness of IHT. Generalisability of findings is limited by the variable external validity identified overall; the most pragmatic study attitude was associated with RCTs of adjunctive IHT. Future OTP-controlled trials in homeopathy should aim, as far as possible, to promote both internal validity and external validity.

Occupational therapy for adults with problems in activities of daily living after stroke.

BACKGROUND: A stroke occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is cut off. Activities of daily living (ADL) are daily home-based activities that people carry out to maintain health and well-being. ADLs include the ability to: eat and drink unassisted, move, go to the toilet, carry out personal hygiene tasks, dress unassisted, and groom. Stroke causes impairment-related functional limitations that may result in difficulties participating in ADLs independent of supervision, direction, or physical assistance.For adults with stroke, the goal of occupational therapy is to improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living. Strategies used by occupational therapists include assessment, treatment, adaptive techniques, assistive technology, and environmental adaptations. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of occupational therapy interventions on the functional ability of adults with stroke in the domain of activities of daily living, compared with no intervention or standard care/practice. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 30 January 2017), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, January 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 5 January 2017), Embase (1974 to 5 January 2017), CINAHL (1937 to January 2017), PsycINFO (1806 to 2 November 2016), AMED (1985 to 1 November 2016), and Web of Science (1900 to 6 January 2017). We also searched grey literature and clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified randomised controlled trials of an occupational therapy intervention (compared with no intervention or standard care/practice) where people with stroke practiced activities of daily living, or where performance in activities of daily living was the focus of the occupational therapy intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data for prespecified outcomes. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who had deteriorated or were dependent in personal activities of daily living and performance in activities of daily living at the end of follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 994 participants in this update. Occupational therapy targeted towards activities of daily living after stroke increased performance scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.31, P = 0.02; 7 studies; 749 participants; low-quality evidence) and reduced the risk of poor outcome (death, deterioration or dependency in personal activities of daily living) (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96; P = 0.03; 5 studies; 771 participants; low-quality evidence). We also found that those who received occupational therapy were more independent in extended activities of daily living (OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.37); P = 0.005; 5 studies; 665 participants; low-quality evidence). Occupational therapy did not influence mortality (OR: 1.02 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.61); P = 0.93; 8 studies; 950 participants), or reduce the combined odds of death and institutionalisation (OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.32); P = 0.55; 4 studies; 671 participants), or death and dependency (OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.23); P = 0.47; 4 trials; 659 participants). Occupational therapy did not improve mood or distress scores (OR 0.08 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.26); P = 0.35; 4 studies; 519 participants; low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effects of occupational therapy on health-related quality of life. We found no studies of consenting carers prior to study participation and therefore there were no carer-related outcomes in our review. There were insufficient data to determine participants' and carers' satisfaction with services.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence was low. The major limitation was the number of studies at unclear risk of selection bias and an inevitable high risk of performance and detection bias, as both participants and occupational therapists could not be blinded to the intervention. In addition, there was a sparseness of data for our outcomes of interest and we downgraded the quality of our evidence for these reasons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence that occupational therapy targeted towards activities of daily living after stroke can improve performance in activities of daily living and reduce the risk of deterioration in these abilities. Because the included studies had methodological flaws, this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect of occupational therapy for adults with stroke.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. METHODS: Literature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy. RESULTS: Forty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a significant disease affecting the circulatory system. Risk factors include smoking, hypertension, sex, and a possible hereditary predisposition. AAAs remain asymptomatic for years, and various imaging methods are used in their detection, diagnosis, and treatment. This article reviews the anatomy and physiology of the aorta as well as the signs and symptoms, pathophysiology, epidemiology, and risk factors for the development of AAA. The use of ultrasonography and other imaging modalities for pre- and post-treatment is discussed, as is endovascular aortic repair.

Model validity and risk of bias in randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment.

BACKGROUND: To date, our programme of systematic reviews has assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathy separately for risk of bias (RoB) and for model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present paper was to bring together our published RoB and MVHT findings and, using an approach based on GRADE methods, to merge the quality appraisals of these same RCTs, examining the impact on meta-analysis results. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: As previously, 31 papers (reporting a total of 32 RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and were the subject of study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each trial, the separate ratings for RoB and MVHT were merged to obtain a single overall quality designation ('high', 'moderate, "low", 'very low'), based on the GRADE principle of 'downgrading'. RESULTS: Merging the assessment of MVHT and RoB identified three trials of 'high quality', eight of 'moderate quality', 18 of 'low quality' and three of 'very low quality'. There was no association between a trial's MVHT and its RoB or its direction of treatment effect (P>0.05). The three 'high quality' trials were those already labelled 'reliable evidence' based on RoB, and so no change was found in meta-analysis based on best-quality evidence: a small, statistically significant, effect favouring homeopathy. CONCLUSION: Accommodating MVHT in overall quality designation of RCTs has not modified our pre-existing conclusion that the medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific, treatment effects.

A systematic review of the evidence on home care reablement services.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether publically funded 'reablement services' have any effect on patient health or use of services. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies in which reablement interventions were compared with no care or usual care in people referred to public-funded personal care services. Data sources included: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EPOC register of studies, trials registers, Medline, EMBASE, and CINHAL. Searches were from 2000 up to end February 2015. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Investigators' definition of the target population for reablement interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of publically funded personal care services and dependence in personal activities of daily living. RESULTS: We found no studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria that assessed the effectiveness of reablement interventions. We did note the lack of an agreed understanding of the nature of reablement. CONCLUSIONS: Reablement is an ill-defined intervention targeted towards an ill-defined and potentially highly heterogeneous population/patient group. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective at either of its goals; increasing personal independence or reducing use of personal care services.

Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos. METHODS: The review's methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial's risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. 'Effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed 'uncertain risk of bias', three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed 'high risk of bias'. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38). CONCLUSIONS: Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous 'global' systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.

Is informal caregiving independently associated with poor health? A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Providing informal care has been linked with poor health but has not previously been studied across a whole population. We aimed to study the association between informal care provision and self-reported poor health. METHOD: We used data from the UK 2001 Census. The relationship between informal caregiving and poor health was modelled using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, marital status, ethnicity, economic activity and educational attainment. RESULTS: We included 44,465,833 individuals free from permanent sickness or disability. 5,451,902 (12.3%) participants reported providing informal care to another person. There was an association between provision of informal caregiving and self-reported poor health; OR 1.100, 95% CI 1.096 to 1.103. This association remained after adjustment for age, sex, ethnic group, marital status, economic activity and educational attainment. The association also increased with the amount of care provided (hours per week). CONCLUSIONS: Around one in eight of the UK population reports that he or she is an informal caregiver. This activity is associated with poor health, particularly in those providing over 20 h care per week.

Home-based therapy programmes for upper limb functional recovery following stroke.

BACKGROUND: With an increased focus on home-based stroke services and the undertaking of programmes, targeted at upper limb recovery within clinical practice, a systematic review of home-based therapy programmes for individuals with upper limb impairment following stroke was required. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of home-based therapy programmes for upper limb recovery in patients with upper limb impairment following stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Specialised Trials Register (May 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), AMED (1985 to May 2011) and six additional databases. We also searched reference lists and trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults after stroke, where the intervention was a home-based therapy programme targeted at the upper limb, compared with placebo, or no intervention or usual care. PRIMARY OUTCOMES were performance in activities of daily living (ADL) and functional movement of the upper limb. SECONDARY OUTCOMES were performance in extended ADL and motor impairment of the arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We undertook assessment of risk of bias in terms of method of randomisation and allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), whether all the randomised patients were accounted for in the analysis (attrition bias) and the presence of selective outcome reporting. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 166 participants. No studies compared the effects of home-based upper limb therapy programmes with placebo or no intervention. Three studies compared the effects of home-based upper limb therapy programmes with usual care. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: we found no statistically significant result for performance of ADL (mean difference (MD) 2.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.43 to 7.14) or functional movement of the upper limb (MD 2.25; 95% CI -0.24 to 4.73)). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: no statistically significant results for extended ADL (MD 0.83; 95% CI -0.51 to 2.17)) or upper limb motor impairment (MD 1.46; 95% CI -0.58 to 3.51). One study compared the effects of a home-based upper limb programme with the same upper limb programme based in hospital, measuring upper limb motor impairment only; we found no statistically significant difference between groups (MD 0.60; 95% CI -8.94 to 10.14). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good quality evidence to make recommendations about the relative effect of home-based therapy programmes compared with placebo, no intervention or usual care.

Non-pharmacological interventions for caregivers of stroke survivors.

BACKGROUND: A substantial component of care is provided to stroke survivors by informal caregivers. However, providing such care is often a new and challenging experience and has been linked to a number of adverse outcomes. A range of interventions targeted towards stroke survivors and their family or other informal caregivers have been tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of interventions targeted towards informal caregivers of stroke survivors or targeted towards informal caregivers and the care recipient (the stroke survivor). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (March 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2010), EMBASE (1980 to December 2010), CINAHL (1982 to August 2010), AMED (1985 to August 2010), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2010) and 11 additional databases. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing studies, we searched conference proceedings and trials registers, scanned reference lists of relevant articles and contacted authors and researchers. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs if they evaluated the effect of non-pharmacological interventions (compared with no care or routine care) on informal caregivers of stroke survivors. We included trials of interventions delivered to stroke survivors and informal caregivers only if the stroke survivor and informal caregiver were randomised as a dyad. We excluded studies which included stroke survivors and caregivers if the stroke survivors were the primary target of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We sought original data from trialists. We categorised interventions into three groups: support and information, teaching procedural knowledge/vocational training type interventions, and psycho-educational type interventions. The primary outcome was caregivers' stress or strain. We resolved disagreements by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies, including a total of 1007 participants, met our inclusion criteria. We did not pool the results of all the studies because of substantial methodological, statistical and clinical heterogeneity. For caregivers' stress or strain we found no significant results within categories of intervention, with the exception of one single-centre study examining the effects of a 'vocational training' type intervention which found a mean difference between the intervention and comparator group at the end of scheduled follow-up of -8.67 (95% confidence interval -11.30 to -6.04, P < 0.001) in favour of the 'teaching procedural knowledge' type intervention group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It was not possible to carry out a meta-analysis of the evidence from RCTs because of methodological, clinical and statistical heterogeneity. One limitation across all studies was the lack of a description of important characteristics that define the informal caregiver population. However, 'vocational educational' type interventions delivered to caregivers prior to the stroke survivor's discharge from hospital appear to be the most promising intervention. However, this is based on the results from one, small, single-centre study.  

Stroke research questions: a nursing perspective.

BACKGROUND: stroke is a national research priority. However, in the literature there is still minimal systematic investigation of stroke nursing - especially practice. The aim of this study was to explore stroke nurses' research priorities through a series of focus groups. METHOD: the study was qualitative and involved focus groups (n = 7) with registered nurses working in stroke care settings and who were members of the Scottish Stroke Nurses Forum. Data were analysed to identify conceptual categories, which were found to relate to the categories defined by Kirkevold (1997) and Booth (2001). RESULTS: five priority areas for stroke nursing were described: preventive/conserving; supporting/consoling; restorative; integrative; and service structure/systems. CONCLUSION: by consulting stroke nurses it can be ensured that future research truly reflects the nature of nursing care and is of particular relevance to stroke nursing practice. The development of research evidence-base in stroke nursing will lead to increased knowledge, a better quality of care and ultimately better outcomes for patients.

Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Very early mobilisation is performed in some stroke units and recommended in acute stroke clinical guidelines. It is unclear whether very early mobilisation independently improves outcome after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of very early mobilisation (commenced within 48 hours of stroke) compared with conventional care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2008). In addition, we searched 25 databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2007), EMBASE (1980 to September 2007), CINAHL (1982 to December 2006), and AMED (1985 to January 2007). We also searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched January 2007) and the Chinese medical database Wanfangdata (searched March 2007), handsearched journals, searched reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Unconfounded RCTs of acute stroke patients, comparing an intervention group that started out of bed mobilisation within 48 hours of stroke and aimed to reduce time to first mobilisation and/or increase the amount or frequency (or both) of mobilisation, with conventional care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author eliminated obviously irrelevant records; two review authors independently applied selection criteria to remaining studies. The primary outcome was death or poor outcome (dependency or institutionalisation) at the end of scheduled follow up. Secondary outcomes included mortality, dependency, institutionalisation, activities of daily living (ADLs), quality of life, time to walking, adverse events (e.g. deep vein thrombosis) and patient mood. MAIN RESULTS: One study, involving 71 participants, was included. In this study the experimental group had earlier and more frequent mobilisation than the control group (median 18.1 hours post stroke for experimental group versus 30.8 hours control; 167 minutes of mobilisation (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 305) during admission for experimental group versus 69 (IQR 31 to 115) minutes control). Fewer patients who received early and frequent mobilisation were dead or disabled at three months, but this was not statistically significant and the confidence intervals were wide (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.79, P = 0.42). No significant difference on any secondary outcomes of interest were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of routine very early mobilisation after stroke, compared with conventional care. More research is required to determine the benefits and harms of very early mobilisation after stroke.

Volunteer Stroke Service (VSS) groups for patients with communication difficulties after stroke: a qualitative analysis of the value of groups to their users.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the functions that Volunteer Stroke Service (VSS) groups fulfil for their members. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group study. SETTING: Mixed urban and rural community settings in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Seven focus groups comprising a total of 24 men and 14 women, with dysarthria or aphasia following stroke, who were members of VSS groups funded by Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland. RESULTS: We identified eight main themes. VSS groups (1) include members in an interpersonal network, (2) provide members with the opportunity to develop interpersonal relations, (3) provide members with support, (4) provide opportunities for personal growth and development, (5) supply members with a purpose, structure and routine, (6) help members establish and confirm their identify, beliefs and values, (7) help members accomplish individual and shared goals, and (8) provide members with the opportunity to influence others and be influenced. CONCLUSION: VSS groups appear to provide a range of functions that meet members' personal, interpersonal and psychological needs.

Occupational therapy for patients with problems in personal activities of daily living after stroke: systematic review of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether occupational therapy focused specifically on personal activities of daily living improves recovery for patients after stroke. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane stroke group trials register, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycLIT, AMED, Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Dissertations Abstracts register, Occupational Therapy Research Index, scanning reference lists, personal communication with authors, and hand searching. REVIEW METHODS: Trials were included if they evaluated the effect of occupational therapy focused on practice of personal activities of daily living or where performance in such activities was the target of the occupational therapy intervention in a stroke population. Original data were sought from trialists. Two reviewers independently reviewed each trial for methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials including 1258 participants met the inclusion criteria. Occupational therapy delivered to patients after stroke and targeted towards personal activities of daily living increased performance scores (standardised mean difference 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.32, P=0.01) and reduced the risk of poor outcome (death, deterioration or dependency in personal activities of daily living) (odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.87, P=0.003). For every 100 people who received occupational therapy focused on personal activities of daily living, 11 (95% confidence interval 7 to 30) would be spared a poor outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational therapy focused on improving personal activities of daily living after stroke can improve performance and reduce the risk of deterioration in these abilities. Focused occupational therapy should be available to everyone who has had a stroke.