BackgroundPhysical therapy (PT) is one of the key disciplines in interdisciplinary stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the evidence for stroke rehabilitation interventions in the domain of PT.Methods and FindingsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding PT in stroke rehabilitation were retrieved through a systematic search. Outcomes were classified according to the ICF. RCTs with a low risk of bias were quantitatively analyzed. Differences between phases poststroke were explored in subgroup analyses. A best evidence synthesis was performed for neurological treatment approaches. The search yielded 467 RCTs (N = 25373; median PEDro score 6 [IQR 5–7]), identifying 53 interventions. No adverse events were reported. Strong evidence was found for significant positive effects of 13 interventions related to gait, 11 interventions related to arm-hand activities, 1 intervention for ADL, and 3 interventions for physical fitness. Summary Effect Sizes (SESs) ranged from 0.17 (95%CI 0.03–0.70; I2 = 0%) for therapeutic positioning of the paretic arm to 2.47 (95%CI 0.84–4.11; I2 = 77%) for training of sitting balance. There is strong evidence that a higher dose of practice is better, with SESs ranging from 0.21 (95%CI 0.02–0.39; I2 = 6%) for motor function of the paretic arm to 0.61 (95%CI 0.41–0.82; I2 = 41%) for muscle strength of the paretic leg. Subgroup analyses yielded significant differences with respect to timing poststroke for 10 interventions. Neurological treatment approaches to training of body functions and activities showed equal or unfavorable effects when compared to other training interventions. Main limitations of the present review are not using individual patient data for meta-analyses and absence of correction for multiple testing.ConclusionsThere is strong evidence for PT interventions favoring intensive high repetitive task-oriented and task-specific training in all phases poststroke. Effects are mostly restricted to the actually trained functions and activities. Suggestions for prioritizing PT stroke research are given.

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women in the developed world. As a result of breast cancer treatment, many patients suffer from serious complaints in their arm and shoulder, leading to limitations in activities of daily living and participation. In this systematic literature review we present an overview of the adverse effects of the integrated breast cancer treatment related to impairment in functions and structures in the upper extremity and upper body and limitations in daily activities. Patients at highest risk were defined.Methods and FindingsWe conducted a systematic literature search using the databases of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane from 2000 to October 2012, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Included were studies with patients with stage I–III breast cancer, treated with surgery and additional treatments (radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy). The following health outcomes were extracted: reduced joint mobility, reduced muscle strength, pain, lymphedema and limitations in daily activities. Outcomes were divided in within the first 12 months and >12 months post-operatively. Patients treated with ALND are at the highest risk of developing impairments of the arm and shoulder. Reduced ROM and muscle strength, pain, lymphedema and decreased degree of activities in daily living were reported most frequently in relation to ALND. Lumpectomy was related to a decline in the level of activities of daily living. Radiotherapy and hormonal therapy were the main risk factors for pain.ConclusionsPatients treated with ALND require special attention to detect and consequently address impairments in the arm and shoulder. Patients with pain should be monitored carefully, because pain limits the degree of daily activities. Future research has to describe a complete overview of the medical treatment and analyze outcome in relation to the treatment. Utilization of uniform validated measurement instruments has to be encouraged.

ObjectivesTo investigate the characteristics and healthcare utilisation of high-cost patients and to compare high-cost patients across payers and countries.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase databases were searched until 30 October 2017.Eligibility criteria and outcomesOur final search was built on three themes: ‘high-cost’, ‘patients’, and ‘cost’ and ‘cost analysis’. We included articles that reported characteristics and utilisation of the top-X% (eg, top-5% and top-10%) patients of costs of a given population. Analyses were limited to studies that covered a broad range of services, across the continuum of care. Andersen’s behavioural model was used to categorise characteristics and determinants into predisposing, enabling and need characteristics.ResultsThe studies pointed to a high prevalence of multiple (chronic) conditions to explain high-cost patients’ utilisation. Besides, we found a high prevalence of mental illness across all studies and a prevalence higher than 30% in US Medicaid and total population studies. Furthermore, we found that high costs were associated with increasing age but that still more than halve of high-cost patients were younger than 65 years. High costs were associated with higher incomes in the USA but with lower incomes elsewhere. Preventable spending was estimated at maximally 10% of spending. The top-10%, top-5% and top-1% high-cost patients accounted for respectively 68%, 55% and 24% of costs within a given year. Spending persistency varied between 24% and 48%. Finally, we found that no more than 30% of high-cost patients are in their last year of life.ConclusionsHigh-cost patients make up the sickest and most complex populations, and their high utilisation is primarily explained by high levels of chronic and mental illness. High-cost patients are diverse populations and vary across payer types and countries. Tailored interventions are needed to meet the needs of high-cost patients and to avoid waste of scarce resources.

Data collection approaches that support the use of PROs in health care are underdeveloped, need better integration with clinical care, and must be tailored to the characteristics of the health care system. Enabling the sustainable use of PROs will require a shared vision of clinical professionals, purchasers, and patients, with a prudent selection of the steps in implementing PROs that will maximize their impact on the quality of health care.