Large numbers of overlapping reviews related to interventions to improve upper limb function following stroke have been identified, and this overview serves to signpost clinicians and policy makers toward relevant systematic reviews to support clinical decisions, providing one accessible, comprehensive document, which should support clinicians and policy makers in clinical decision making for stroke rehabilitation.Currently, no high-quality evidence can be found for any interventions that are currently used as part of routine practice, and evidence is insufficient to enable comparison of the relative effectiveness of interventions. Effective collaboration is urgently needed to support large, robust RCTs of interventions currently used routinely within clinical practice. Evidence related to dose of interventions is particularly needed, as this information has widespread clinical and research implications.

No abstract

There was no evidence to suggest a shortened fluid fast results in an increased risk of aspiration, regurgitation or related morbidity compared with the standard 'nil by mouth from midnight' fasting policy. Permitting patients to drink water preoperatively resulted in significantly lower gastric volumes. Clinicians should be encouraged to appraise this evidence for themselves and when necessary adjust any remaining standard fasting policies (nil-by-mouth from midnight) for patients that are not considered 'at-risk' during anaesthesia.

No abstract

BackgroundImproving upper limb function is a core element of stroke rehabilitation needed to maximise patient outcomes and reduce disability. Evidence about effects of individual treatment techniques and modalities is synthesised within many reviews. For selection of effective rehabilitation treatment, the relative effectiveness of interventions must be known. However, a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews in this area is currently lacking. ObjectivesTo carry out a Cochrane overview by synthesising systematic reviews of interventions provided to improve upper limb function after stroke. MethodsSearch methods: We comprehensively searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; the Database of Reviews of Effects; and PROSPERO (an international prospective register of systematic reviews) (June 2013). We also contacted review authors in an effort to identify further relevant reviews.Selection criteria: We included Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with stroke comparing upper limb interventions with no treatment, usual care or alternative treatments. Our primary outcome of interest was upper limb function; secondary outcomes included motor impairment and performance of activities of daily living. When we identified overlapping reviews, we systematically identified the most up-to-date and comprehensive review and excluded reviews that overlapped with this. Data collection and analysis: Two overview authors independently applied the selection criteria, excluding reviews that were superseded by more up-to-date reviews including the same (or similar) studies. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of reviews (using a modified version of the AMSTAR tool) and extracted data. Quality of evidence within each comparison in each review was determined using objective criteria (based on numbers of participants, risk of bias, heterogeneity and review quality) to apply GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) levels of evidence. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We systematically tabulated the effects of interventions and used quality of evidence to determine implications for clinical practice and to make recommendations for future research.

The findings provide insight into the psychosocial impact of dysarthria following stroke. Speech and language therapy interventions need to go beyond the speech impairment to address and promote psychosocial well being, reduce the likelihood of feelings of stigmatization and changes in self-identity, irrespective of the severity of dysarthria.

The autosomal recessive multicentric osteolytic disorders of childhood—Torg, Winchester, and François syndromes—predominantly affect the carpal, tarsal, and interphalangeal joints, and their progressive bone loss and crippling arthritic deformities mimic severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. In a consanguineous Saudi Arabian family two affected sibs with facial anomalies and short stature displayed a distal arthropathy of the metacarpal, metatarsal, and interphalangeal joints starting in the first few months of life that eventually progressed to the proximal joints and resulted in crippling ankylosis and severe generalized osteopenia. Facial changes included proptosis, a narrow nasal bridge, bulbous nose, and micrognathia. In addition, they had large, painful fibrocollagenous palmar and plantar pads and mild body hirsutism. Affected individuals were of normal intelligence and had normal renal function. Routine hematologic, chemistry, and rheumatoid studies were within normal limits. Histologic examination of bone marrow and an interphalangeal joint biopsy were not informative. The autosomal recessive inheritance, clinical, and radiologic characteristics of the affected sibs suggested that they had a form of multicentric osteolysis most closely resembling the Torg syndrome, but with a unique facial appearance, fibrocollagenous pads, and body hirsutism not noted in the original description of the syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. 93:11–18, 2000. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n ¼ 182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.