Mental practice for treating upper extremity deficits in individuals with hemiparesis after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is caused by the interruption of blood flow to the brain (ischemic stroke) or the rupture of blood vessels within the brain (hemorrhagic stroke) and may lead to changes in perception, cognition, mood, speech, health-related quality of life, and function, such as difficulty walking and using the arm. Activity limitations (decreased function) of the upper extremity are a common finding for individuals living with stroke. Mental practice (MP) is a training method that uses cognitive rehearsal of activities to improve performance of those activities. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether MP improves outcomes of upper extremity rehabilitation for individuals living with the effects of stroke. In particular, we sought to (1) determine the effects of MP on upper extremity activity, upper extremity impairment, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, economic costs, and adverse effects; and (2) explore whether effects differed according to (a) the time post stroke at which MP was delivered, (b) the dose of MP provided, or (c) the type of comparison performed. SEARCH METHODS: We last searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register on September 17, 2019. On September 3, 2019, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and REHABDATA. On October 2, 2019, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We reviewed the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants with stroke who had deficits in upper extremity function (called upper extremity activity). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened titles and abstracts of the citations produced by the literature search and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained the full text of all remaining studies, and both review authors then independently selected trials for inclusion. We combined studies when the review produced a minimum of two trials employing a particular intervention strategy and a common outcome. We considered the primary outcome to be the ability of the arm to be used for appropriate tasks, called upper extremity activity. Secondary outcomes included upper extremity impairment (such as quality of movement, range of motion, tone, presence of synergistic movement), activities of daily living (ADLs), health-related quality of life (HRQL), economic costs, and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and applied GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We completed subgroup analyses for time since stroke, dosage of MP, type of comparison, and type of arm activity outcome measure. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies involving 676 participants from nine countries. For the comparison of MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment, MP in combination with other treatment appears more effective in improving upper extremity activity than the other treatment without MP (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 to 0.94; I² = 39%; 15 studies; 397 participants); the GRADE certainty of evidence score was moderate based on risk of bias for the upper extremity activity outcome. For upper extremity impairment, results were as follows: SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.87; I² = 43%; 15 studies; 397 participants, with a GRADE score of moderate, based on risk of bias. For ADLs, results were as follows: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.39; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 157 participants; the GRADE score was low due to risk of bias and small sample size. For the comparison of MP versus conventional treatment, the only outcome with available data to combine (3 studies; 50 participants) was upper extremity impairment (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.33 to 1.00; I² = 21%); GRADE for the impairment outcome in this comparison was low due to risk of bias and small sample size. Subgroup analyses of time post stroke, dosage of MP, or comparison type for the MP in combination with other rehabilitation treatment versus the other treatment comparison showed no differences. The secondary outcome of health-related quality of life was reported in only one study, and no study noted the outcomes of economic costs and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity activity. Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity impairment after stroke. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ADLs may not be improved with MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that MP versus conventional treatment may not improve upper extremity impairment. Further study is required to evaluate effects of MP on time post stroke, the volume of MP required to affect outcomes, and whether improvement is maintained over the long term.

Anxiety Associated with Colonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Addressing procedure-related anxiety should improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening programs and diagnostic colonoscopy. We performed a systematic review to assess anxiety among individuals undergoing colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases for studies evaluating anxiety associated with colonoscopy or FS published from 2005 to 2017. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. The main outcomes were the magnitude of pre-procedure anxiety, types of concerns, predictors of anxiety, and effectiveness of anxiety-lowering interventions in individuals undergoing lower endoscopy. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies (24,490 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing colonoscopy had a higher mean level of anxiety than that previously reported in the general population, with some studies reporting more than 50% of patients having moderate-to-severe anxiety. Areas of anxiety-related concern included bowel preparation, difficulties with the procedure (embarrassment, pain, possible complications, and sedation), and concerns about diagnosis; including fear of being diagnosed with cancer. Female gender, higher baseline anxiety, functional abdominal pain, lower education, and lower income were associated with greater anxiety prior to colonoscopy. Providing higher-quality information before colonoscopy, particularly with a video, shows promise as a way of reducing pre-procedure anxiety but the studies to date are of low quality. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients undergoing colonoscopy report anxiety before the procedure. Improvement in pre-procedure information delivery and evaluation of approaches to reduce anxiety is required, especially for those with predictors of pre-procedure anxiety.

Interventions for improving community ambulation in individuals with stroke.

BACKGROUND: Community ambulation refers to the ability of a person to walk in their own community, outside of their home and also indoors in private or public locations. Some people choose to walk for exercise or leisure and may walk with others as an important aspect of social functioning. Community ambulation is therefore an important skill for stroke survivors living in the community whose walking ability has been affected. OBJECTIVES: To determine: (1) whether interventions improve community ambulation for stroke survivors, and (2) if any specific intervention method improves community ambulation more than other interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2013), PubMed (1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (1980 to November 2013), CINAHL (1982 to November 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to November 2013), Scopus (1960 to November 2013), Web of Science (1900 to November 2013), SPORTDiscus (1975 to November 2013), and PEDro, CIRRIE and REHABDATA (November 2013). We also searched ongoing trials registers (November 2013) and reference lists, and performed a cited reference search. SELECTION CRITERIA: Selection criteria included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs, studies in which participants are adult (aged 18 years or more) stroke survivors, and interventions that were aimed at improving community ambulation. We defined the primary outcome as participation; secondary outcomes included activity level outcomes related to gait and self-efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author independently screened titles. Two review authors screened abstracts and full text articles, with a third review author was available to resolve any disagreements. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. All outcomes were continuous. The analysis for the primary outcome used the generic inverse variance methods for meta-analysis, using the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standard error (SE) from the participation outcomes. Analyses for secondary outcomes all used SMD or mean difference (MD). We completed analyses for each outcome with all studies, and by type of community ambulation intervention (community or outdoor ambulation practice, virtual practice, and imagery practice). We considered trials for each outcome to be of low quality due to some trial design considerations, such as who knew what group the participants were in, and the number of people who dropped out of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 266 participants (136 intervention; 130 control). All participants were adult stroke survivors, living in the community or a care home. Programmes to improve community ambulation consisted of walking practice in a variety of settings and environments in the community, or an indoor activity that mimicked community walking (including virtual reality or mental imagery). Three studies were funded by government agencies, and two had no funding.From two studies of 198 people there was low quality evidence for the effect of intervention on participation compared with control (SMD, 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.35 (using inverse variance). The CI for the effect of the intervention on gait speed was wide and does not exclude no difference (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.24; four studies, 98 participants, low quality evidence). We considered the quality of the evidence to be low for all the remaining outcomes in our review: Community Walk Test (MD -6.35, 95% CI -21.59 to 8.88); Walking Ability Questionnaire (MD 0.53, 95% CI -5.59 to 6.66); Six-Minute Walk Test (MD 39.62 metres, 95% CI -8.26 to 87.51) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.72). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of a high risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to establish the effect of community ambulation interventions or to support a change in clinical practice. More research is needed to determine if practicing outdoor or community walking will improve participation and community ambulation skills for stroke survivors living in the community.

Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Compared to Dose-Matched Interventions for Upper-Limb Dysfunction in Adult Survivors of Stroke: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To summarize the existing literature examining constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT), relative to dose-matched control interventions, for upper-limb (UL) dysfunction in adult survivors of stroke. METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, NARIC/CIRRIE-Rehabdata, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from their inception to February 2011. Trial quality was described using the PEDro scale. The findings were summarized with meta-analysis. RESULTS: For the 22 trials identified, the mean (SD) PEDro score was 6.4 (1.2). Meta-analysis showed CIMT to be superior to dose-matched interventions based on indicators of UL motor capacity (15 trials, n=432; standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.47, 95% CI, 0.27-0.66) and UL ability (14 trials, n=352; SMD=0.80, 95% CI, 0.57-1.02); Functional Independence Measure scores (6 trials, n=182; mean difference [MD]=5.05, 95% CI, 2.23-7.87); and Motor Activity Log scores (Amount of Use: 12 trials, n=318; MD=1.05, 95% CI, 0.85-1.24; Quality of Movement: 11 trials, n=330; MD=0.89, 95% CI, 0.69-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to control interventions of equal duration and dose, CIMT produced greater improvements in a variety of indicators of UL function in adult survivors of a stroke with residual movement of their upper limb.

Objectif : Faire la synthèse de la littérature existante traitant de la thérapie par contrainte induite (TCI) par rapport aux interventions de contrôle avec dosage équivalent dans les cas de dysfonctions des membres supérieurs chez les adultes ayant survécu à un accident vasculaire cérébral. Méthode : Une recherche a été effectuée dans CINAHL, dans la bibliothèque de Cochrane, dans Embase, NARIC/CIRRIE­Rehabdata, PEDro, PubMed, Scopus, et Web of Science depuis leur mise en ligne jusqu'en février 2011. La qualité des recherches a été évaluée à l'aide de l'échelle PEDro. Les conclusions ont été résumées à l'aide d'une méta-analyse. Résultats : Au total, 22 essais ont été répertoriés; la moyenne de leur cote à l'échelle PEDro était de 6,4 (SD1 de 0,2). La méta-analyse a révélé que la TCI est supérieure aux interventions de contrôle avec dosage équivalent pour les indicateurs de capacité motrice des membres supérieurs (15 essais, n=432; MDS=0,47; 95%IC, 0,27­0,66); capacité des membres supérieurs (14 essais, n=352; MDS=0,80; 95%IC, 0,57­1,02); mesure de l'autonomie fonctionnelle [Functional Independence Measure] (6 essais, n=182; DM=5,05; 95%IC, 2,23­7,87); et score du journal de l'activité motrice [Motor Activity Log] (quantité d'utilisation : 12 essais, n=318; DM=1,05; 95%IC, 0,85­1,24; qualité du mouvement : 11 essais, n=330; DM=0,89; 95%IC 0,69­1,08). Conclusions : Si on la compare aux interventions de contrôle de durée et avec dosage équivalents, la TCI suscite de plus grandes améliorations dans une variété d'indicateurs de la fonction des membres supérieurs chez les adultes ayant survécu à un AVC avec mouvement résiduel de leurs membres supérieurs.

Mental practice for treating upper extremity deficits in individuals with hemiparesis after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Activity limitations of the upper extremity are a common finding for individuals living with stroke. Mental practice (MP) is a training method that uses cognitive rehearsal of activities to improve performance of those activities. OBJECTIVES: To determine if MP improves the outcome of upper extremity rehabilitation for individuals living with the effects of stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (November 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, November 2009), PubMed (1965 to November 2009), EMBASE (1980 to November 2009), CINAHL (1982 to November 2009), PsycINFO (1872 to November 2009), Scopus (1996 to November 2009), Web of Science (1955 to November 2009), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), CIRRIE, REHABDATA, ongoing trials registers, and also handsearched relevant journals and searched reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials involving adults with stroke who had deficits in upper extremity function. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. We considered the primary outcome to be the ability of the arm to be used for appropriate tasks (i.e. arm function). MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies involving 119 participants. We combined studies that evaluated MP in addition to another treatment versus the other treatment alone. Mental practice in combination with other treatment appears more effective in improving upper extremity function than the other treatment alone (Z = 3.48, P = 0.0005; standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 2.15). We attempted subgroup analyses, based on time since stroke and dosage of MP; however, numbers in each group were small. We evaluated the quality of the evidence with the PEDro scale, ranging from 6 to 9 out of 10; we determined the GRADE score to be moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to suggest that MP in combination with other rehabilitation treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity function after stroke, as compared with other rehabilitation treatment without MP. Evidence regarding improvement in motor recovery and quality of movement is less clear. There is no clear pattern regarding the ideal dosage of MP required to improve outcomes. Further studies are required to evaluate the effect of MP on time post stroke, volume of MP that is required to affect the outcomes and whether improvement is maintained long-term. Numerous large ongoing studies will soon improve the evidence base.

Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is increasingly used for sedation during colonoscopy, with many recent reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized case series. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to identify, analyze and summarize RCTs comparing the relative effectiveness, patient acceptance and safety of propofol for colonoscopy, to traditional sedatives (narcotics and/or benzodiazepines).The secondary objective was to synthesize the studies comparing propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Cancerlit, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, Biological Abstracts, Web of Science and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry database between January 1980 and June 2007; and conference proceeding abstracts for DDW, EUGW and ACG between 1990 and June 2007. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing use of propofol and traditional agents or administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The data were pooled using the Cochrane Collaborations' methodology and statistical software RevMan 4.2.10. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria for the primary objective. Most studies included only healthy out-patients. Recovery and discharge times were shorter with use of propofol. There was higher patient satisfaction with use of propofol (OR for dissatisfaction 0.35, 95% CI 0.23, 0.53). There was no difference in procedure time, cecal intubation rate or complications. There was no difference in pain control with non- patient controlled sedation (PCS) use of propofol as compared to the traditional agents (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.58, 1.39). Although there was higher patient satisfaction (OR for dissatisfaction 0.42, 95% CI 0.20, 0.89), the pain control was inferior with use of PCS use of propofol as compared to the use of traditional agents (OR 3.09; 95% CI 2.15, 4.46).There was only one study comparing administration of propofol by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists for sedation during colonoscopy, with no difference in procedure time or patient satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy for generally healthy individuals can lead to faster recovery and discharge times, increased patient satisfaction without an increase in side-effects. More studies with standardized end-points are needed to compare propofol administration by anesthesiologists to that by non-anesthesiologists.