Background and Purpose-In the Western world, the Bobath Concept or neurodevelopmental treatment is the most popular treatment approach used in stroke rehabilitation, yet the superiority of the Bobath Concept as the optimal type of treatment has not been established. This systematic review of randomized, controlled trials aimed to evaluate the available evidence for the effectiveness of the Bobath Concept in stroke rehabilitation. Method-A systematic literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE and CENTRAL (March 2008) and by screening the references of selected publications (including reviews). Studies in which the effects of the Bobath Concept were investigated were classified into the following domains: sensorimotor control of upper and lower limb; sitting and standing, balance control, and dexterity; mobility; activities of daily living; health-related quality of life; and cost-effectiveness. Due to methodological heterogeneity within the selected studies, statistical pooling was not considered. Two independent researchers rated all retrieved literature according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale from which a best evidence synthesis was derived to determine the strength of the evidence for both effectiveness of the Bobath Concept and for its superiority over other approaches. Results-The search strategy initially identified 2263 studies. After selection based on predetermined criteria, finally, 16 studies involving 813 patients with stroke were included for further analysis. There was no evidence of superiority of Bobath on sensorimotor control of upper and lower limb, dexterity, mobility, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Only limited evidence was found for balance control in favor of Bobath. Because of the limited evidence available, no best evidence synthesis was applied for the health-related quality-of-life domain and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions-This systematic review confirms that overall the Bobath Concept is not superior to other approaches. Based on best evidence synthesis, no evidence is available for the superiority of any approach. This review has highlighted many methodological shortcomings in the studies reviewed; further high-quality trials need to be published. Evidence-based guidelines rather than therapist preference should serve as a framework from which therapists should derive the most effective treatment. (Stroke. 2009;40:e89-e97.)
This review provides some preliminary support for the potential importance of self-management interventions after stroke. The most appropriate content and best approach for delivery of these interventions remains to be determined. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to test the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of stroke self-management programmes.
A randomized controlled trial of virtual reality-mediated therapy comparable to conventional therapy would be feasible, with some suggested improvements in recruitment and outcome measures. Seventy-eight participants (39 per group) would be required for a main trial.
VR is a potentially exciting and safe tool for stroke rehabilitation but its evidence base is too limited by design and power issues to permit a definitive assessment of its value. Thus, while the findings of this review are generally positive, the level of evidence is still weak to moderate, in terms of research quality. Further study in the form of rigorous controlled studies is warranted.
Background Falls are one of the most common medical complications after stroke with a reported incidence of 7% in the first week after stroke onset. Studies investigating falls in the later phase after stroke report an incidence of up to 73% in the first year post-stroke. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing falls in people after stroke.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.