Therapeutic effects of rehabilitation training methods on spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a lesion of neural elements of spinal cord. Frequently, there is motor incomplete injury and locomotor disability. Robot assisted locomotor training, functional electrical stimulation (FES) devices, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) devices are commo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Lancet (British edition) 2019-10, Vol.394, p.S27-S27 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | S27 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | S27 |
container_title | The Lancet (British edition) |
container_volume | 394 |
creator | Yuan, Yashuai Yu, Xiaobing |
description | Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a lesion of neural elements of spinal cord. Frequently, there is motor incomplete injury and locomotor disability. Robot assisted locomotor training, functional electrical stimulation (FES) devices, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) devices are commonly used to improve motor control and gait of patients with SCI. The efficacies of different interventions for SCI have not been reported comprehensively, and a full comparison of these strategies may benefit clinicians who apply these techniques in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacies of different interventions for SCI.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching for publications using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database, the database of the US National Institutes of Health, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on Dec 30, 2018. Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials that compared interventions with usual care or a no exercise control, and that were published in English, were selected for our meta-analysis. The primary outcomes included functional independence (assessed using the functional independence measure, SCI independence measure, American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] upper extremity motor score [UEMS] or lower extremity motor score [LEMS], and other hand function tests), walking speed (10 m walking test [10MWT]) and walking distance (6 min walking test [6MWT]), walking capacity (walking index for spinal cord injuries version II [WISCI II]), spasticity (modified Ashworth scale [MAS]), and quality of life of patients with SCI. The secondary outcomes included patient dropout and adverse events during intervention. Weighted mean differences and 95% CIs were used to measure intervention efficacy, and the OR was used for analysis of adverse events. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale scores were used for quality assessment of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.0 software.
Our initial search yielded 1410, 1643, and 452 English articles reporting the effectiveness of rTMS or FES, exercise or training, and robot assisted locomotor treadmill training on functional recovery after SCI. Of these articles, 27 randomised controlled trials and three controlled trials, including 1020 patients with SCI, were included for meta-analysis. Four articles were available for evaluating rTMS versus control (81 participants) |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32363-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2306781212</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0140673619323633</els_id><sourcerecordid>2306781212</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2293-866d4768d9cee813afc726d6887eb895a9b88b59e6df21d1dc886286e28354c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QQh40cNqPnaTrBeR4hcUPFjBi4RsMmtT2s2a7Bb679224tXTHOZ5X2YehM4puaaEips3QnOSCcnFJS2vOOOCZ_wAjWgu86zI5cchGv0hx-gkpQUhJBekGKHP2RyiaaHvvMVQ12C7hEONI8xN5Ze-M50PDe6i8Y1vvvAKunlwA9Lg1PrGLLEN0WHfLPq4ucVmC5jMDItN8ukUHdVmmeDsd47R--PDbPKcTV-fXib308wyVvJMCeFyKZQrLYCi3NRWMuGEUhIqVRamrJSqihKEqxl11FmlBFMCmOJFbiUfo4t9bxvDdw-p04vQx-GIpBknQirKKBuoYk_ZGFKKUOs2-pWJG02J3prUO5N6q0nTUu9Maj7k7vY5GF5Ye4g6WQ-NBefj4Eu74P9p-AFmXXs2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2306781212</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Therapeutic effects of rehabilitation training methods on spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Yuan, Yashuai ; Yu, Xiaobing</creator><creatorcontrib>Yuan, Yashuai ; Yu, Xiaobing</creatorcontrib><description>Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a lesion of neural elements of spinal cord. Frequently, there is motor incomplete injury and locomotor disability. Robot assisted locomotor training, functional electrical stimulation (FES) devices, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) devices are commonly used to improve motor control and gait of patients with SCI. The efficacies of different interventions for SCI have not been reported comprehensively, and a full comparison of these strategies may benefit clinicians who apply these techniques in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacies of different interventions for SCI.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching for publications using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database, the database of the US National Institutes of Health, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on Dec 30, 2018. Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials that compared interventions with usual care or a no exercise control, and that were published in English, were selected for our meta-analysis. The primary outcomes included functional independence (assessed using the functional independence measure, SCI independence measure, American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] upper extremity motor score [UEMS] or lower extremity motor score [LEMS], and other hand function tests), walking speed (10 m walking test [10MWT]) and walking distance (6 min walking test [6MWT]), walking capacity (walking index for spinal cord injuries version II [WISCI II]), spasticity (modified Ashworth scale [MAS]), and quality of life of patients with SCI. The secondary outcomes included patient dropout and adverse events during intervention. Weighted mean differences and 95% CIs were used to measure intervention efficacy, and the OR was used for analysis of adverse events. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale scores were used for quality assessment of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.0 software.
Our initial search yielded 1410, 1643, and 452 English articles reporting the effectiveness of rTMS or FES, exercise or training, and robot assisted locomotor treadmill training on functional recovery after SCI. Of these articles, 27 randomised controlled trials and three controlled trials, including 1020 patients with SCI, were included for meta-analysis. Four articles were available for evaluating rTMS versus control (81 participants), six for FES (174 participants), nine for massed practice or treadmill training (218 participants), and 11 for robot assisted treadmill training (547 participants). rTMS improved walking speed (mean absolute difference [MD] 0·09, 95% CI 0·01–0·16, p=0·03, 10MWT) and lower extremity motor function (4·41, 1·55–7·27, p=0·003, ASIA LEMS) compared with control (sham rTMS plus gait training), but not spasticity and walking index. FES significantly increased upper extremity independence (2·92, 0·37–5·48, p=0·03) compared with control (conventional occupational therapy [COT] or resistance and aerobic training), but not upper extremity or lower extremity function and quality of life. Activity-based therapy (massed practice and treadmill training) showed no benefit to nerve injury and functional rehabilitation compared with control (no intervention, overground mobility therapy, self-regulated exercises, or conventional rehabilitation program), whereas robot assisted treadmill training significantly improved ASIA LEMS scores (5·00, 3·44–6·56, p<0·00001) and lower extremity independence (3·73, 2·53–4·92, p<0·00001) compared with control interventions (no intervention, cycling and walking), but not walking capacity (10MWT and 6MWT). No difference was seen in the incidence of adverse events in pairwise comparison of robot assisted treadmill training with control and activity-based therapy with control.
rTMS, FES, and robot assisted treadmill training are effective in rehabilitating patients with SCI. The efficacies of rTMS and robot assisted treadmill training were relatively consistent among articles. The combination of rTMS and robot assisted treadmill training was effective in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI.
None.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-6736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-547X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32363-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Clinical trials ; Effectiveness ; Electrical stimuli ; Evaluation ; Exercise ; Fitness equipment ; Gait ; Injuries ; Injury analysis ; Intervention ; Magnetic fields ; Meta-analysis ; Motor task performance ; Physical therapy ; Quality assessment ; Quality control ; Quality of life ; Randomization ; Recovery of function ; Rehabilitation ; Robots ; Spasticity ; Spinal cord injuries ; Systematic review ; Training ; Transcranial magnetic stimulation ; Treadmills ; Walking</subject><ispartof>The Lancet (British edition), 2019-10, Vol.394, p.S27-S27</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2019. Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2293-866d4768d9cee813afc726d6887eb895a9b88b59e6df21d1dc886286e28354c73</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2306781212?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64389,72469</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yuan, Yashuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xiaobing</creatorcontrib><title>Therapeutic effects of rehabilitation training methods on spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis</title><title>The Lancet (British edition)</title><description>Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a lesion of neural elements of spinal cord. Frequently, there is motor incomplete injury and locomotor disability. Robot assisted locomotor training, functional electrical stimulation (FES) devices, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) devices are commonly used to improve motor control and gait of patients with SCI. The efficacies of different interventions for SCI have not been reported comprehensively, and a full comparison of these strategies may benefit clinicians who apply these techniques in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacies of different interventions for SCI.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching for publications using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database, the database of the US National Institutes of Health, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on Dec 30, 2018. Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials that compared interventions with usual care or a no exercise control, and that were published in English, were selected for our meta-analysis. The primary outcomes included functional independence (assessed using the functional independence measure, SCI independence measure, American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] upper extremity motor score [UEMS] or lower extremity motor score [LEMS], and other hand function tests), walking speed (10 m walking test [10MWT]) and walking distance (6 min walking test [6MWT]), walking capacity (walking index for spinal cord injuries version II [WISCI II]), spasticity (modified Ashworth scale [MAS]), and quality of life of patients with SCI. The secondary outcomes included patient dropout and adverse events during intervention. Weighted mean differences and 95% CIs were used to measure intervention efficacy, and the OR was used for analysis of adverse events. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale scores were used for quality assessment of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.0 software.
Our initial search yielded 1410, 1643, and 452 English articles reporting the effectiveness of rTMS or FES, exercise or training, and robot assisted locomotor treadmill training on functional recovery after SCI. Of these articles, 27 randomised controlled trials and three controlled trials, including 1020 patients with SCI, were included for meta-analysis. Four articles were available for evaluating rTMS versus control (81 participants), six for FES (174 participants), nine for massed practice or treadmill training (218 participants), and 11 for robot assisted treadmill training (547 participants). rTMS improved walking speed (mean absolute difference [MD] 0·09, 95% CI 0·01–0·16, p=0·03, 10MWT) and lower extremity motor function (4·41, 1·55–7·27, p=0·003, ASIA LEMS) compared with control (sham rTMS plus gait training), but not spasticity and walking index. FES significantly increased upper extremity independence (2·92, 0·37–5·48, p=0·03) compared with control (conventional occupational therapy [COT] or resistance and aerobic training), but not upper extremity or lower extremity function and quality of life. Activity-based therapy (massed practice and treadmill training) showed no benefit to nerve injury and functional rehabilitation compared with control (no intervention, overground mobility therapy, self-regulated exercises, or conventional rehabilitation program), whereas robot assisted treadmill training significantly improved ASIA LEMS scores (5·00, 3·44–6·56, p<0·00001) and lower extremity independence (3·73, 2·53–4·92, p<0·00001) compared with control interventions (no intervention, cycling and walking), but not walking capacity (10MWT and 6MWT). No difference was seen in the incidence of adverse events in pairwise comparison of robot assisted treadmill training with control and activity-based therapy with control.
rTMS, FES, and robot assisted treadmill training are effective in rehabilitating patients with SCI. The efficacies of rTMS and robot assisted treadmill training were relatively consistent among articles. The combination of rTMS and robot assisted treadmill training was effective in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI.
None.</description><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Electrical stimuli</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Fitness equipment</subject><subject>Gait</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Injury analysis</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Magnetic fields</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Motor task performance</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Recovery of function</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Robots</subject><subject>Spasticity</subject><subject>Spinal cord injuries</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Transcranial magnetic stimulation</subject><subject>Treadmills</subject><subject>Walking</subject><issn>0140-6736</issn><issn>1474-547X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMoWKs_QQh40cNqPnaTrBeR4hcUPFjBi4RsMmtT2s2a7Bb679224tXTHOZ5X2YehM4puaaEips3QnOSCcnFJS2vOOOCZ_wAjWgu86zI5cchGv0hx-gkpQUhJBekGKHP2RyiaaHvvMVQ12C7hEONI8xN5Ze-M50PDe6i8Y1vvvAKunlwA9Lg1PrGLLEN0WHfLPq4ucVmC5jMDItN8ukUHdVmmeDsd47R--PDbPKcTV-fXib308wyVvJMCeFyKZQrLYCi3NRWMuGEUhIqVRamrJSqihKEqxl11FmlBFMCmOJFbiUfo4t9bxvDdw-p04vQx-GIpBknQirKKBuoYk_ZGFKKUOs2-pWJG02J3prUO5N6q0nTUu9Maj7k7vY5GF5Ye4g6WQ-NBefj4Eu74P9p-AFmXXs2</recordid><startdate>201910</startdate><enddate>201910</enddate><creator>Yuan, Yashuai</creator><creator>Yu, Xiaobing</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0TT</scope><scope>0TZ</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8C2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KB~</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201910</creationdate><title>Therapeutic effects of rehabilitation training methods on spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis</title><author>Yuan, Yashuai ; Yu, Xiaobing</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2293-866d4768d9cee813afc726d6887eb895a9b88b59e6df21d1dc886286e28354c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Electrical stimuli</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Fitness equipment</topic><topic>Gait</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Injury analysis</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Magnetic fields</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Motor task performance</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Recovery of function</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Robots</topic><topic>Spasticity</topic><topic>Spinal cord injuries</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Transcranial magnetic stimulation</topic><topic>Treadmills</topic><topic>Walking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yuan, Yashuai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xiaobing</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>News PRO</collection><collection>Pharma and Biotech Premium PRO</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Lancet Titles</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Newsstand Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yuan, Yashuai</au><au>Yu, Xiaobing</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Therapeutic effects of rehabilitation training methods on spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle><date>2019-10</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>394</volume><spage>S27</spage><epage>S27</epage><pages>S27-S27</pages><issn>0140-6736</issn><eissn>1474-547X</eissn><abstract>Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a lesion of neural elements of spinal cord. Frequently, there is motor incomplete injury and locomotor disability. Robot assisted locomotor training, functional electrical stimulation (FES) devices, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) devices are commonly used to improve motor control and gait of patients with SCI. The efficacies of different interventions for SCI have not been reported comprehensively, and a full comparison of these strategies may benefit clinicians who apply these techniques in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacies of different interventions for SCI.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching for publications using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database, the database of the US National Institutes of Health, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on Dec 30, 2018. Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials that compared interventions with usual care or a no exercise control, and that were published in English, were selected for our meta-analysis. The primary outcomes included functional independence (assessed using the functional independence measure, SCI independence measure, American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] upper extremity motor score [UEMS] or lower extremity motor score [LEMS], and other hand function tests), walking speed (10 m walking test [10MWT]) and walking distance (6 min walking test [6MWT]), walking capacity (walking index for spinal cord injuries version II [WISCI II]), spasticity (modified Ashworth scale [MAS]), and quality of life of patients with SCI. The secondary outcomes included patient dropout and adverse events during intervention. Weighted mean differences and 95% CIs were used to measure intervention efficacy, and the OR was used for analysis of adverse events. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale scores were used for quality assessment of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.0 software.
Our initial search yielded 1410, 1643, and 452 English articles reporting the effectiveness of rTMS or FES, exercise or training, and robot assisted locomotor treadmill training on functional recovery after SCI. Of these articles, 27 randomised controlled trials and three controlled trials, including 1020 patients with SCI, were included for meta-analysis. Four articles were available for evaluating rTMS versus control (81 participants), six for FES (174 participants), nine for massed practice or treadmill training (218 participants), and 11 for robot assisted treadmill training (547 participants). rTMS improved walking speed (mean absolute difference [MD] 0·09, 95% CI 0·01–0·16, p=0·03, 10MWT) and lower extremity motor function (4·41, 1·55–7·27, p=0·003, ASIA LEMS) compared with control (sham rTMS plus gait training), but not spasticity and walking index. FES significantly increased upper extremity independence (2·92, 0·37–5·48, p=0·03) compared with control (conventional occupational therapy [COT] or resistance and aerobic training), but not upper extremity or lower extremity function and quality of life. Activity-based therapy (massed practice and treadmill training) showed no benefit to nerve injury and functional rehabilitation compared with control (no intervention, overground mobility therapy, self-regulated exercises, or conventional rehabilitation program), whereas robot assisted treadmill training significantly improved ASIA LEMS scores (5·00, 3·44–6·56, p<0·00001) and lower extremity independence (3·73, 2·53–4·92, p<0·00001) compared with control interventions (no intervention, cycling and walking), but not walking capacity (10MWT and 6MWT). No difference was seen in the incidence of adverse events in pairwise comparison of robot assisted treadmill training with control and activity-based therapy with control.
rTMS, FES, and robot assisted treadmill training are effective in rehabilitating patients with SCI. The efficacies of rTMS and robot assisted treadmill training were relatively consistent among articles. The combination of rTMS and robot assisted treadmill training was effective in the rehabilitation of patients with SCI.
None.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32363-3</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0140-6736 |
ispartof | The Lancet (British edition), 2019-10, Vol.394, p.S27-S27 |
issn | 0140-6736 1474-547X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2306781212 |
source | Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
subjects | Clinical trials Effectiveness Electrical stimuli Evaluation Exercise Fitness equipment Gait Injuries Injury analysis Intervention Magnetic fields Meta-analysis Motor task performance Physical therapy Quality assessment Quality control Quality of life Randomization Recovery of function Rehabilitation Robots Spasticity Spinal cord injuries Systematic review Training Transcranial magnetic stimulation Treadmills Walking |
title | Therapeutic effects of rehabilitation training methods on spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T23%3A30%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Therapeutic%20effects%20of%20rehabilitation%20training%20methods%20on%20spinal%20cord%20injury:%20a%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20Lancet%20(British%20edition)&rft.au=Yuan,%20Yashuai&rft.date=2019-10&rft.volume=394&rft.spage=S27&rft.epage=S27&rft.pages=S27-S27&rft.issn=0140-6736&rft.eissn=1474-547X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32363-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2306781212%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2306781212&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0140673619323633&rfr_iscdi=true |