microsoft word template for masters theses and reports€¦ · web viewcorbetta 2010 35. peurala...

Supplementary material

ContentsForest plots and funnel plots.................................................................................3

Robot assisted.....................................................................................................3Mehrholz 2015...............................................................................................3Norouzi-Gheidari 2012...................................................................................5Veerbeek 2017...............................................................................................7

Slings.................................................................................................................14Chen 2016 (SMD)........................................................................................14Chen 2016 (MD as presented in original paper)...........................................15

Nintendo Wii.......................................................................................................17Cheok 2015..................................................................................................17

tDCS..................................................................................................................18Elsner 2016..................................................................................................18Triccas 2015.................................................................................................19Triccas 2015.................................................................................................20Triccas 2015.................................................................................................21Bachet 2017.................................................................................................22

Moxibustion........................................................................................................23Han 2018 (MD as presented in original paper).............................................23Han 2018 (SMD)..........................................................................................24

Acupuncture.......................................................................................................25Lee 2013......................................................................................................25Li 2014 (MD as presented in original paper)................................................29Li 2014 (SMD)..............................................................................................30Yang 2016 (MD as presented in original paper)...........................................31Yang 2016 (SMD).........................................................................................32Peng 2017....................................................................................................33

Constraint Induced Movement...........................................................................35Corbetta 2010...............................................................................................35Peurala 2012 (MD as presented in original paper).......................................36Peurala 2012(SMD)......................................................................................37Peurala 2012 (MD as presented in original paper).......................................39Peurala 2012(SMD)......................................................................................40Peurala 2012................................................................................................42Shi 2011.......................................................................................................44Shi 2011 (MD as original paper)...................................................................45Shi 2011 (SMD)............................................................................................46

Virtual Reality.....................................................................................................48Laver 2012...................................................................................................48Laver 2015...................................................................................................49

FES....................................................................................................................51

Rehabilitation in sub-acute stroke for ADLs

Eraifej 2017..................................................................................................51Repetitive task training.......................................................................................52

French 2010.................................................................................................52French 2016.................................................................................................53

Bilateral training.................................................................................................54Lee 2017......................................................................................................54

Augmented exercise therapy.............................................................................55Veerbeek 2011.............................................................................................55

Motor imagery....................................................................................................56Fernandes 2017...........................................................................................56

Electroacupunture..............................................................................................57Yiyi 2017 (MD as in original paper)..............................................................57Yiyi 2017 (SMD)...........................................................................................58

Tai chi................................................................................................................59Lyu 2018......................................................................................................59

Water based training..........................................................................................63Mehrholz 2011 (MD as in original paper).....................................................63Mehrholz 2011 (SMD)..................................................................................63

Mirror therapy.....................................................................................................64Thieme 2018................................................................................................64

rTMS..................................................................................................................65Hao 2013 (MD as in original paper).............................................................65Hao 2013 (SMD)..........................................................................................65

Circuit class therapy...........................................................................................66English 2017 (MD as in original paper)........................................................66English 2017 (SMD).....................................................................................66

rPMS..................................................................................................................67Momosaki 2017 (MD as original paper)........................................................67Momosaki 2017 (SMD).................................................................................67

Meta regressions...................................................................................................69Thieme 2018................................................................................................69Li 2014.........................................................................................................70French 2016.................................................................................................72Elsner 2016..................................................................................................74Han 2018......................................................................................................76Yang 2016....................................................................................................78

Sensitivity analysis................................................................................................80Han 2018......................................................................................................80Li 2014.........................................................................................................81Yang 2016....................................................................................................82

Subgroup Analysis................................................................................................83Thieme 2018................................................................................................83Yang 2016....................................................................................................84Han 2018......................................................................................................85Li 2014.........................................................................................................86

2


Forest plots and funnel plots

Robot assisted

Mehrholz 2015Distal training (finger, hand and radio-ulnar joints)

3


Proximal training (shoulder and elbow joints)

4


Norouzi-Gheidari 2012 Additional RT

5


Same duration/intensity therapy

6


Veerbeek 2017 all RT-UL vs any type of control

7


8


shoulder/elbow RT-UL versus any type of control for outcome of basic ADL post intervention

9


End-effector RT-UL versus any type of control for outcome of basic ADL post intervention

10


RT-UL <3 months poststroke versus any type of control for outcome of basic ADL post intervention

11


dose-matched RT-UL trials versus any type of control for outcome of basic ADL post intervention

12


Non dose-matched RT-UL trials versus any type of control for outcome of basic ADL post intervention

13


Slings

Chen 2016 (SMD)

14


Chen 2016 (MD as presented in original paper)

(this is the original paper)

(Favours control and Favours experimental labels changed)

(this is the original paper)

15


(Favours control and Favours experimental labels changed)

16


Nintendo Wii

Cheok 2015

17


tDCS

Elsner 2016

18


Triccas 2015 real tDCS versus sham tDCS

19


Triccas 2015 anodal tDCS versus sham tDCS

20


Triccas 2015 cathodal tDCS versus sham tDCS

21


Bachet 2017

22


Moxibustion

Han 2018 (MD as presented in original paper)

23


Han 2018 (SMD)

24


Acupuncture

Lee 2013 SA vs Rehab

25


SA + medication vs medication

26


SA + rehabilitation vs rehabilitation (MD as presented in original paper)

27


SA + rehabilitation vs rehabilitation (SMD)

28


Li 2014 (MD as presented in original paper)

29


Li 2014 (SMD)

30


Yang 2016 (MD as presented in original paper)

31


Yang 2016 (SMD)

32


Peng 2017

33


34


Constraint Induced Movement

Corbetta 2010

35


Peurala 2012 (MD as presented in original paper) Motor Activity Log (MAL) – amount of use

36


Peurala 2012(SMD)

Motor Activity Log (MAL) – amount of use

37


38


Peurala 2012 (MD as presented in original paper) Motor Activity Log (MAL) – quality of use

39


Peurala 2012(SMD)

Motor Activity Log (MAL) – quality of use

40


41


Peurala 2012 FIM

42


43


Shi 2011 FIM

44


Shi 2011 (MD as original paper) MAL

45


Shi 2011 (SMD) MAL

46


47


Virtual Reality

Laver 2012

48


Laver 2015

49


Additional virtual reality intervention

50


FES

Eraifej 2017

51


Repetitive task training

French 2010

52


French 2016

53


Bilateral training

Lee 2017

54


Augmented exercise therapy

Veerbeek 2011

55


Motor imagery

Fernandes 2017

56


Electroacupunture

Yiyi 2017 (MD as in original paper)

57


Yiyi 2017 (SMD)

58


Tai chi

Lyu 2018 (MD as in original paper) studies comparing TC plus conventional rehabilitation therapy with conventional rehabilitation therapy alone

59


Lyu 2018

(SMD) studies comparing TC plus conventional rehabilitation therapy with conventional rehabilitation therapy alone

60


Lyu 2018

(MD as in original paper) studies comparing TC with conventional rehabilitation therapy

61


Lyu 2018

(SMD) studies comparing TC with conventional rehabilitation therapy

62


Water based training

Mehrholz 2011 (MD as in original paper)

Mehrholz 2011 (SMD)

63


Mirror therapy

Thieme 2018

64


rTMS

Hao 2013 (MD as in original paper)

Hao 2013 (SMD)

65


Circuit class therapy

English 2017 (MD as in original paper)

English 2017 (SMD)

66


rPMS

Momosaki 2017 (MD as original paper)

Momosaki 2017 (SMD)

67


68


Meta regressions

Thieme 2018 Covariate: total participants in experimental group

Mixed-Effects Model (k = 19; tau^2 estimator: DL)

tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 0 (SE = 0.0465)tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 0.00%H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 1.00R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): 100.00%

Test for Residual Heterogeneity: QE(df = 17) = 15.5359, p-val = 0.5569

Test of Moderators (coefficient(s) 2): QM(df = 1) = 5.6772, p-val = 0.0172

Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt 0.9324 0.2133 4.3718 <.0001 0.5144 1.3504 ***total.e -0.0228 0.0096 -2.3827 0.0172 -0.0415 -0.0040 *

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

69


Covariate: year of publication


tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 0.0332 (SE = 0.0577)tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0.1821I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 19.77%H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 1.25R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): 0.00%



Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt -9.3195 67.3059 -0.1385 0.8899 -141.2366 122.5976 year 0.0049 0.0334 0.1456 0.8843 -0.0607 0.0704

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Li 2014 Covariate: total participants in experimental group


tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 1.5597 (SE = 0.7976)tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 1.2489I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 95.84%H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 24.06

70


R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): 0.00%

Test for Residual Heterogeneity: QE(df = 10) = 240.6116, p-val < .0001


Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt 1.7166 0.6968 2.4635 0.0138 0.3509 3.0824 *total.e -0.0050 0.0120 -0.4219 0.6731 -0.0285 0.0184

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1




71




Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lbintrcpt 66.9130 187.0938 0.3576 0.7206 -299.7841year -0.0326 0.0932 -0.3502 0.7262 -0.2152 ci.ub intrcpt 433.6100 year 0.1500

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

French 2016 Covariate: total participants in experimental group


tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 0 (SE = 0.0393)tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 0.00%H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 1.00R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): NA%

72




Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt -0.0084 0.2382 -0.0354 0.9717 -0.4754 0.4585 total.e 0.0072 0.0056 1.2939 0.1957 -0.0037 0.0181



tau^2 (estimated amount of residual heterogeneity): 0.0010 (SE = 0.0420)tau (square root of estimated tau^2 value): 0.0318I^2 (residual heterogeneity / unaccounted variability): 1.28%H^2 (unaccounted variability / sampling variability): 1.01R^2 (amount of heterogeneity accounted for): NA%

73




Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt 24.8685 33.0649 0.7521 0.4520 -39.9376 89.6745 year -0.0123 0.0165 -0.7437 0.4570 -0.0446 0.0200

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Elsner 2016 Covariate: total participants in experimental group





74


Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt 0.2857 0.2361 1.2097 0.2264 -0.1772 0.7485 total.e -0.0013 0.0056 -0.2261 0.8211 -0.0123 0.0097

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1






Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ubintrcpt 18.0985 145.1570 0.1247 0.9008 -266.4040 302.6011year -0.0089 0.0721 -0.1230 0.9021 -0.1502 0.1325

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

75


Han 2018 Covariate: total participants in experimental group





Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt 1.8562 0.7776 2.3872 0.0170 0.3322 3.3802 *total.e -0.0238 0.0225 -1.0573 0.2904 -0.0680 0.0203

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

76







Model Results:


---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

77


Yang 2016 Covariate: total participants in experimental group




Test of Moderators (coefficient(s) 2): QM(df = 1) = 23.9608, p-val < .0001

Model Results:

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub intrcpt -1.5609 0.6061 -2.5753 0.0100 -2.7488 -0.3730 *total.e 0.0821 0.0168 4.8950 <.0001 0.0492 0.1150 ***

---Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

78







Model Results:


Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

79


Sensitivity analysis

Han 2018

Influential analysis (Random effects model)

SMD 95%-CI p-value tau^2 I^2Omitting Chen 2012 1.1354 [0.6827; 1.5881] < 0.0001 0.6073 88.7%Omitting Feng 2014 0.9711 [0.5511; 1.3911] < 0.0001 0.5146 87.4%Omitting Feng 2015 1.0239 [0.5741; 1.4737] < 0.0001 0.6004 88.8%Omitting Liu 2015 1.1459 [0.7014; 1.5904] < 0.0001 0.5859 88.7%Omitting Luo 2014 0.9998 [0.5622; 1.4373] < 0.0001 0.5646 88.3%Omitting Luo 2014 1.1014 [0.6367; 1.5661] < 0.0001 0.6451 89.4%Omitting Qi 2015 1.0029 [0.5656; 1.4403] < 0.0001 0.5618 88.0%Omitting Wen 2014 1.1367 [0.6849; 1.5885] < 0.0001 0.6047 88.7%Omitting Wen 2015 1.1476 [0.7113; 1.5839] < 0.0001 0.5553 87.0%Omitting Wu 2015 1.1115 [0.6481; 1.5749] < 0.0001 0.6406 89.3%Omitting Xie 2013 1.1154 [0.6532; 1.5776] < 0.0001 0.6368 89.2%Omitting Xu 2013 1.0204 [0.5723; 1.4686] < 0.0001 0.5955 88.8%Omitting Yu 2014 1.0572 [0.5904; 1.5241] < 0.0001 0.6507 89.3%Omitting Zhou 2016 0.9784 [0.5499; 1.4069] < 0.0001 0.5430 88.2% Pooled estimate 1.0675 [0.6363; 1.4986] < 0.0001 0.5927 88.6%

80


Li 2014


SMD 95%-CI p-value tau^2 I^2Omitting Cheng 2011 1.4487 [0.7412; 2.1561] < 0.0001 1.2622 95.9%Omitting Hsing 2012 1.5061 [0.8102; 2.2019] < 0.0001 1.2179 95.7%Omitting Huang 2008 1.3782 [0.6759; 2.0805] 0.0001 1.2418 95.8%Omitting Pei 2001 1.0711 [0.4687; 1.6735] 0.0005 0.8992 94.5%Omitting Rao 2006 1.4942 [0.8028; 2.1856] < 0.0001 1.2047 95.8%Omitting Schuler 2005 1.5125 [0.8126; 2.2125] < 0.0001 1.2315 95.6%Omitting Shen 2012 1.5592 [0.7724; 2.3460] 0.0001 1.5751 95.8%Omitting Shu 2011 1.4864 [0.7522; 2.2205] < 0.0001 1.3618 95.9%Omitting Tong 2013 1.4354 [0.7192; 2.1517] < 0.0001 1.2938 95.9%Omitting Wu 2011 0.9172 [0.4961; 1.3384] < 0.0001 0.4460 89.9%Omitting Xie 2004 1.4326 [0.7246; 2.1406] < 0.0001 1.2641 95.9%Omitting Zhang 2008 1.4045 [0.6935; 2.1155] 0.0001 1.2739 95.8% Pooled estimate 1.3577 [0.7083; 2.0070] < 0.0001 1.1615 95.5%

81


Yang 2016


SMD 95%-CI p-value tau^2 I^2Omitting Bao 2012 1.3333 [0.5104; 2.1562] 0.0015 1.3303 94.4%Omitting Huang 2008 1.2111 [0.4014; 2.0207] 0.0034 1.2879 94.4%Omitting Ke 2015 1.1573 [0.3717; 1.9429] 0.0039 1.2064 93.9%Omitting Li 2010 1.3275 [0.5143; 2.1407] 0.0014 1.3002 94.5%Omitting Wu 2011 1.3241 [0.4987; 2.1495] 0.0017 1.3390 94.4%Omitting Yao 2014 1.4205 [0.6601; 2.1809] 0.0003 1.1237 93.4%Omitting Zhan 2014 0.9579 [0.4659; 1.4499] 0.0001 0.4261 84.7%Omitting Zhang 2015 1.3965 [0.6116; 2.1814] 0.0005 1.2025 93.8%Omitting Zheng 2014 1.2742 [0.4465; 2.1018] 0.0025 1.3476 94.5% Pooled estimate 1.2671 [0.5362; 1.9980] 0.0007 1.1726 93.8%

82


Subgroup Analysis

Thieme 2018

83


Yang 2016

84


85


Han 2018

86


Li 2014

APPENDIX EXCLUDED

87


Broderick P, Horgan F, Blake C, Ehrensberger M, Simpson D, Monaghan K. Mirror therapy for improving lower limb motor function and mobility after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gait Posture. 2018 Jun;63:208-220. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.05.017.

Li Y Wei Q, Gou W, He C Effects of mirror therapy on walking ability, balance and lower limb motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2018 Aug;32(8):1007-1021. doi: 10.1177/0269215518766642.

Bonini-Rocha AC, de Andrade ALS, Moraes AM, Gomide Matheus LB, Diniz LR, Martins WR. Effectiveness of Circuit-Based Exercises on Gait Speed, Balance, and Functional Mobility in People Affected by Stroke: A Meta-Analysis. PM R. 2018 Apr;10(4):398-409. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.09.014.

Bruni MF, Melegari C, De Cola MC, Bramanti A, Bramanti P, Calabrò RS . What does best evidence tell us about robotic gait rehabilitation in stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2018 Feb;48:11-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.10.048

Howlett OA, Lannin NA, Ada L, McKinstry C. Functional electrical stimulation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 May;96(5):934-43. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.01.013.

Kang N, Summers JJ, Cauraugh JH. J Transcranial direct current stimulation facilitatesmotor learning post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87:345–355. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2015-311242

Li Y, Fan J, Yang J, He C1, Li S. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on walking and balance function after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 May 3. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000948.

O'Brien AT, Bertolucci F, Torrealba-Acosta G, Huerta R, Fregni F, Thibaut A. Non-invasive brain stimulation for fine motor improvement after stroke: a meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2018 Aug;25(8):1017-1026. doi: 10.1111/ene.13643

Iatridou G, Pelidou HS, Varvarousis D, Stergiou A, Beris A, Givissis P, Ploumis A. The effectiveness of hydrokinesiotherapy on postural balance of hemiplegic patients after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2018 May;32(5):583-593. doi: 10.1177/0269215517748454..

Zhang Y, Cai J, Zhang Y, Ren T, Zhao M, Zhao Q. Improvement in Stroke-induced Motor Dysfunction by Music-supported Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 5;6:38521. doi: 10.1038/srep38521.

Ghai S (2018) Effects of Real-Time (Sonification) and Rhythmic Auditory Stimuli on Recovering Arm Function Post Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Neurol. 9:488.doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00488

Park Y, Park S, and Lee H., Comparison of the Effectiveness of Whole Body Vibration in Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis, BioMed Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 5083634, 10 pages, 2018. doi.org/10.1155/2018/5083634.

88

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5083634


Wang XQ, Pi YL, Chen BL, Chen PJ, Liu Y, Wang R, Li X, Waddington G. Cognitive motor interference for gait and balance in stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Neurol. 2015 Mar;22(3):555-e37. doi: 10.1111/ene.12616

APPENDIX Search strategy

Theme 1.: Stroke"Stroke"[Mesh] OR cva[tiab] OR cvas[tiab] OR poststroke*[tiab] OR stroke*[tiab] OR apoplex*[tiab]

Theme 3 RCTsSearch randomized controlled trial[pt] OR controlled clinical trial[pt] OR randomized[tiab] OR placebo[tiab] OR randomly[tiab] OR trial[tiab] OR groups[tiab]

Therapy , Search “ADLs” OR “activities of daily living” OR “ADL”OR “FIM”OR ”Functional” OR ”Independence”OR “Barthel” AND ("Physical Therapy Modalities"[MeSH] OR "Exercise Therapy"[Mesh] OR "Exercise Movement Techniques"[Mesh] OR "Physical Therapy (Specialty)"[MeSH] OR "Recovery of Function"[Mesh] OR "rehabilitation"[SH] OR rehabilitati*[tiab] OR physiotherap*[tiab] OR (physical[tiab] AND (therapy[tiab] OR therapies[tiab] OR activity[tiab] OR activities[tiab])) OR exercis*[tiab] OR training[tiab] OR (occupational[tiab] AND (therapy[tiab] OR therapies[tiab])))

Check wordsArticle type: ReviewFilter: meta-analysis

APPENDIX

89


Supplementary Figure 1. Funnel plots of ( > 1 study) publications in Figure 3

APPENDIX

90


Supplementary Figure 2. Work design diagram taking as starting point the outcome of PRISMA Flow diagram of the study selection process presented in Figure 1

APPENDIX

Supplementary Table 1. PICOS criteria used in the present umbrella review

Parameter

Description

Population

Inclusion: stroke patients >18 yearsExclusion: children and pregnant women

Intervention

Inclusion: sub-acute phase physical rehabilitation Exclusion: other rehabilitation (cognitive, language,..)

Comparis Randomized clinical trials: Rehabilitation intervention versus no

91


on intervention or standard rehabilitation or usual care

Outcome Inclusion: ADLs outcomes scales, regarded as continuous scaled, where usually higher scores indicate a good outcome, for example Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Barthel Index (BI), modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), Rivermead ADL Assessment, Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living, Motor Activity Log (MAL), modified Barthel Index (mBI).)Exclusion: not ADLs-related outcomes

Study design

Inclusion: systematic reviews including meta-analyses (quantitative analysis) of randomized clinical trials Exclusion: studies not published as peer-reviewed meta-analyses in international scientific journals, systematic reviews without quantitative analysis

APPENDIX

Supplementary Table 2. Cases and controls grouped by intervention

INTERVENTION CASE CONTROL TOTALACUPUNCT 1442 1425 2867ROBOT 1524 1303 2827

CIM 724 721 1445

tDCS 565 428 993

MOXIBUS 459 434 893

RTT 448 404 852

MIRROR THERAPY

333 289 622

TAI CHI 280 277 557

ELECTROACU 262 260 522

VR 276 231 507

mCIM 219 215 434

CIRCUIT 147 149 296

rTMS 93 90 183

SLING 88 88 176

IMAGERY 81 81 162

AUGMENTED 66 72 138

BILATERAL 61 56 117

92


FES 32 33 65

rPMS 31 32 63

Wii 20 17 37

HYDROTHERAPY 16 15 31

APPENDIXSupplementary Table 3. Quality assessment (AMSTAR) of included meta-analyses

Author, Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total ScoreMehrholz 2015 [31] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Norouzi 2012 [32] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 9Veerbeek 2017 [1] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 10Chen 2016 [33] Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 9Cheok 2015 [34] Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Elsner 2016 [10] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Triccas 2015 [35] Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y 9Banchetti 2017 [36] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N N 7Han 2018 [37] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 9Lee 2013 [38] Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Li 2014 [39] Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 10Yang 2016 [40] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Peng 2018 [41] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y 8Corbetta 2010 [42] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y 8Peurala 2012 [43] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N N 7Shi 2011 [44] Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y 9Laver 2012 [45] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Laver 2015 [46] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Eraifej 2017 [47] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11French 2010 [48] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y 8French 2016 [49] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Lee 2017 [50] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y 8Veerbeek 2011 [51] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y 8Fernandes 2017[52]

Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 9

Cai 2017 [53] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 9Lyu 2018 [54] Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 9Mehrholz 2011 [55] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Thieme 2018 [56] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Hao 2013 [57] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11English 2017 [58] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11Momosaki 2017[11] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11

Y = Yes, criteria met (1 point), N = No, criteria not met (0 points), UA = unable to answer (0 points)1. Was an ’a priori’ design provided?2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

93


11. Was the conflict of interest stated?

APPENDIXSupplementary Table 4. Mean AMSTAR score grouped by intervention of included meta-analyses

Intervention MeanCIM 7,5AUGMENTED 8

BILATERAL 8

tDCS 8

ELECTROACU 9

IMAGERY 9

mCIM 9

MOXIBUSTION 9

SLING 9

TAI-CHI 9

RTT 9,5

ACUPUNCTURE 9,75

ROBOTIC 10

Wii 10

CIRCUIT 11

FES 11

HYDROTHERAPY 11

MIRROR THERAPY

11

rPMS 11

rTMS 11

tCDS 11

VR 11

APPENDIX

Supplementary Table 5. Regression models with pval < 0.05 for the total participants in experimental group covariate (for meta-analysis with ≥ 9 studies)

estimate se zval pval ci.lb ci.ub Study-0.0228 0.0096 -2.3827 0.0172 -0.0415 -0.0040 Thieme

20180.0821 0.0168 4.8950 <.0001 0.0492 0.1150 Yang 2016

94


2.28% and 8.21% respectively of effect size is explained by the number of participants in the experimental group.

95

microsoft word template for masters theses and reports€¦ · web viewcorbetta 2010 35. peurala...

Documents