↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical fitness training for stroke patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
159 tweeters
facebook
15 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
650 Mendeley
Title
Physical fitness training for stroke patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003316.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

David H Saunders, Mark Sanderson, Sara Hayes, Maeve Kilrane, Carolyn A Greig, Miriam Brazzelli, Gillian E Mead

Abstract

Levels of physical fitness are low after stroke. It is unknown whether improving physical fitness after stroke reduces disability. To determine whether fitness training after stroke reduces death, dependence, and disability and to assess the effects of training with regard to adverse events, risk factors, physical fitness, mobility, physical function, quality of life, mood, and cognitive function. Interventions to improve cognitive function have attracted increased attention after being identified as the highest rated research priority for life after stroke. Therefore we have added this class of outcomes to this updated review. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 1: searched February 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2015), EMBASE (1980 to February 2015), CINAHL (1982 to February 2015), SPORTDiscus (1949 to February 2015), and five additional databases (February 2015). We also searched ongoing trials registers, handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. Randomised trials comparing either cardiorespiratory training or resistance training, or both (mixed training), with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in stroke survivors. Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed data using random-effects meta-analyses. Diverse outcome measures limited the intended analyses. We included 58 trials, involving 2797 participants, which comprised cardiorespiratory interventions (28 trials, 1408 participants), resistance interventions (13 trials, 432 participants), and mixed training interventions (17 trials, 957 participants). Thirteen deaths occurred before the end of the intervention and a further nine before the end of follow-up. No dependence data were reported. Diverse outcome measures restricted pooling of data. Global indices of disability show moderate improvement after cardiorespiratory training (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.84; P value = 0.002) and by a small amount after mixed training (SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.49; P value = 0.02); benefits at follow-up (i.e. after training had stopped) were unclear. There were too few data to assess the effects of resistance training.Cardiorespiratory training involving walking improved maximum walking speed (mean difference (MD) 6.71 metres per minute, 95% CI 2.73 to 10.69), preferred gait speed (MD 4.28 metres per minute, 95% CI 1.71 to 6.84), and walking capacity (MD 30.29 metres in six minutes, 95% CI 16.19 to 44.39) at the end of the intervention. Mixed training, involving walking, increased preferred walking speed (MD 4.54 metres per minute, 95% CI 0.95 to 8.14), and walking capacity (MD 41.60 metres per six minutes, 95% CI 25.25 to 57.95). Balance scores improved slightly after mixed training (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.47). Some mobility benefits also persisted at the end of follow-up. The variability, quality of the included trials, and lack of data prevents conclusions about other outcomes and limits generalisability of the observed results. Cardiorespiratory training and, to a lesser extent, mixed training reduce disability during or after usual stroke care; this could be mediated by improved mobility and balance. There is sufficient evidence to incorporate cardiorespiratory and mixed training, involving walking, within post-stroke rehabilitation programmes to improve the speed and tolerance of walking; some improvement in balance could also occur. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of resistance training. The effects of training on death and dependence after stroke are still unclear but these outcomes are rarely observed in physical fitness training trials. Cognitive function is under-investigated despite being a key outcome of interest for patients. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription and identify long-term benefits.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 159 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 650 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 642 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 145 22%
Student > Bachelor 99 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 10%
Researcher 57 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 38 6%
Other 133 20%
Unknown 110 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 144 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 143 22%
Sports and Recreations 67 10%
Neuroscience 33 5%
Psychology 24 4%
Other 87 13%
Unknown 152 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 123. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2021.
All research outputs
#199,624
of 17,788,816 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#380
of 11,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,068
of 272,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,788,816 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.