Timing and Dose of Upper Limb Motor Intervention After Stroke: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to investigate timing, dose, and efficacy of upper limb intervention during the first 6 months poststroke. Three online databases were searched up to July 2020. Titles/abstracts/full-text were reviewed independently by 2 authors. Randomized and nonrandomized studies that enrolled people within the first 6 months poststroke, aimed to improve upper limb recovery, and completed preintervention and postintervention assessments were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane reporting tools. Studies were examined by timing (recovery epoch), dose, and intervention type. Two hundred and sixty-one studies were included, representing 228 (n=9704 participants) unique data sets. The number of studies completed increased from one (n=37 participants) between 1980 and 1984 to 91 (n=4417 participants) between 2015 and 2019. Timing of intervention start has not changed (median 38 days, interquartile range [IQR], 22–66) and study sample size remains small (median n=30, IQR 20–48). Most studies were rated high risk of bias (62%). Study participants were enrolled at different recovery epochs: 1 hyperacute (<24 hours), 13 acute (1–7 days), 176 early subacute (8–90 days), 34 late subacute (91–180 days), and 4 were unable to be classified to an epoch. For both the intervention and control groups, the median dose was 45 (IQR, 600–1430) min/session, 1 (IQR, 1–1) session/d, 5 (IQR, 5–5) d/wk for 4 (IQR, 3–5) weeks. The most common interventions tested were electromechanical (n=55 studies), electrical stimulation (n=38 studies), and constraint-induced movement (n=28 studies) therapies. Despite a large and growing body of research, intervention dose and sample size of included studies were often too small to detect clinically important effects. Furthermore, interventions remain focused on subacute stroke recovery with little change in recent decades. A united research agenda that establishes a clear biological understanding of timing, dose, and intervention type is needed to progress stroke recovery research. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018019367/CRD42018111629

Early Mobilization After Stroke: Do Clinical Practice Guidelines Support Clinicians' Decision-Making?

Importance: Early mobilization, out-of-bed activity, is a component of acute stroke unit care; however, stroke patient heterogeneity requires complex decision-making. Clinically credible and applicable CPGs are needed to support and optimize the delivery of care. In this study, we are specifically exploring the role of clinical practice guidelines to support individual patient-level decision-making by stroke clinicians about early mobilization post-stroke. Methods: Our study uses a novel, two-pronged approach. (1) A review of CPGs containing recommendations for early mobilization practices published after 2015 was appraised using purposely selected items from the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool relevant to decision-making for clinicians. (2) A cross-sectional study involving semi-structured interviews with Australian expert stroke clinicians representing content experts and CPG target users. Every CPG was independently assessed against the AGREE-REX standard by two reviewers. Expert stroke clinicians, invited via email, were recruited between June 2019 to March 2020.The main outcomes from the review was the proportion of criteria addressed for each AGREE-REX item by individual and all CPG(s). The main cross-sectional outcomes were the distributions of stroke clinicians' responses about the utility of CPGs, specific areas of uncertainty in early mobilization decision-making, and suggested parameters for inclusion in future early mobilization CPGs. Results: In 18 identified CPGs, many did not adequately address the "Evidence" and "Applicability to Patients" AGREE-REX items. Out of 30 expert stroke clinicians (11 physicians [37%], 11 physiotherapists [37%], 8 nurses [26%]; median [IQR] years of experience, 14 [10-25]), 47% found current CPGs "too broad or vague," while 40% rely on individual clinical judgement and interpretation of the evidence to select an evidence-based choice of action. The areas of uncertainty in decision-making revealed four key suggestions: (1) more granular descriptions of patient and stroke characteristics for appropriate tailoring of decisions, (2) clear statements about when clinical flexibility is appropriate, (3) detailed description of the intervention dose, and (4) physical assessment criteria including safety parameters. Conclusions: The lack of specificity, clinical applicability, and adaptability of current CPGs to effectively respond to the heterogeneous clinical stroke context has provided a clear direction for improvement