Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Servicios de telerrehabilitación para el accidente cerebrovascular

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 16 December 2013see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Stroke Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Kate E Laver

    Correspondence to: Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Daniel Schoene

    Falls and Balance Research Group, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia

  • Maria Crotty

    Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Flinders University, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, Australia

  • Stacey George

    Department of Rehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, Flinders University, Daw Park, Australia

  • Natasha A Lannin

    Faculty of Health Science, Alfred Clinical School, La Trobe University, Prahran, Australia

  • Catherine Sherrington

    Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Contributions of authors

Kate E Laver is the guarantor of the review. Contributions included co‐ordinating the review, drafting the protocol, developing the search strategy, searching for trials, obtaining copies of the trials, selecting which trials to include, extracting data from the trials, entering data, carrying out the analysis, interpreting the analysis and drafting the final review.

Daniel Schoene was involved in drafting the protocol, searching for trials, selecting which trials to include, extracting data from trials, interpreting the analysis and drafting the final review.

Maria Crotty was involved in drafting the protocol, selecting which trials to include (arbiter), interpreting the analysis and drafting the final review.

Stacey George was involved in drafting the protocol, selecting which trials to include (arbiter), interpreting the analysis and drafting the final review.

Natasha A Lannin was involved in drafting the protocol, carrying out the analysis, interpreting the analysis and drafting the final review.

Catherine Sherrington was involved in drafting the protocol, guiding and interpreting the analysis and drafting the final review.

All authors will be responsible for updating the review.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Brenda Thomas for her assistance in designing the search strategy. We would also like to thank Cochrane editors Peter Langhorne and Alex Pollock and external peer reviewer Paul Davies.

We wish to thank Andrea Turolla, Nancy Mayo, Greg Smith and Han Boter, who generously provided additional details and analyses from their trials to assist us with preparation of the review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2020 Jan 31

Telerehabilitation services for stroke

Review

Kate E Laver, Zoe Adey‐Wakeling, Maria Crotty, Natasha A Lannin, Stacey George, Catherine Sherrington

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3

2013 Dec 16

Telerehabilitation services for stroke

Review

Kate E Laver, Daniel Schoene, Maria Crotty, Stacey George, Natasha A Lannin, Catherine Sherrington

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub2

2012 Dec 12

Telerehabilitation services for stroke

Protocol

Kate E Laver, Daniel Schoene, Maria Crotty, Stacey George, Natasha A Lannin, Catherine Sherrington

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010255

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Comparison 1 Independence in activities of daily living: postintervention, Outcome 1 Independence in activities of daily living.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Independence in activities of daily living: postintervention, Outcome 1 Independence in activities of daily living.

Comparison 2 Upper limb function: postintervention, Outcome 1 Upper limb function.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Upper limb function: postintervention, Outcome 1 Upper limb function.

Table 1. Numbers of participants screened, recruited and followed up

Study

Screened

Randomised

Allocated to intervention group

Allocated to control group

Assessed at follow‐up

Boter 2004

691

536

263

273

486

Carey 2007

167

25

13

12

20

Chumbler 2012

52

52

27

25

44

Deng 2012

62

19

9

10

16

Forducey 2012

Not reported

11

Not reported

Not reported

9

Huijgen 2008

Not reported

16

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Mayo 2008

294

190

96

94

157

Piron 2008

Not reported

10

5

5

10

Piron 2009

Not reported

36

18

18

36

Smith 2012

161

38

19

19

32

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Numbers of participants screened, recruited and followed up
Table 2. Comparison of characteristics of studies included within the review

Study

Intervention

Comparison

Time after stroke

Country of study

Boter 2004

Case management via 3 telephone calls and a home visit up to 24 weeks after discharge from an acute hospital following stroke

Usual care

Not reported; however, intervention was provided on discharge from acute facility

The Netherlands

Carey 2007

Upper limb therapy targeting finger and wrist movements provided via a computerised programme in which explicit feedback on performance was provided. Regular teleconferencing occurred between participant and therapist

Upper limb therapy targeting finger and wrist movements provided via a computerised programme whereby explicit feedback on performance was not provided. Regular teleconferencing occurred between participant and therapist

Chronic phase

USA

Chumbler 2012

A programme designed to improve the person's functional mobility administered via televisits, use of an in‐home messaging device and 5 telephone calls over a 3‐month period

Usual care

Subacute phase

USA

Deng 2012

Lower limb therapy targeting ankle movements provided via a computerised programme in which explicit feedback on performance was provided. Teleconferencing was used regularly, and performance data were emailed to the therapist

Lower limb therapy targeting ankle movements provided via a computerised programme whereby explicit feedback on performance was not provided. Teleconferencing was used regularly, and performance data were emailed to the therapist

Chronic phase

USA

Forducey 2012

A total of 12 therapy sessions (occupational therapy and physiotherapy) were conducted via a desktop videophone. Interventions included education, retraining of self care, functional mobility and posture, home modifications and therapy to improve function in impaired limbs

The same intervention programme was delivered face‐to‐face

Not reported

USA

Huijgen 2008

Upper limb therapy using the Home Care Activity Device (computer‐based programme) for 1 month

Usual care and generic exercises were provided by a physician

Chronic phase

The Netherlands

Mayo 2008

Case management intervention provided via home visits and telephone calls for 6 weeks following discharge from acute care

Participants were instructed to make an appointment with their general practitioner

Acute phase

Canada

Piron 2008

Upper limb therapy that was delivered using a virtual reality programme at home and supplemented by videoconferencing

Upper limb therapy that was delivered using a virtual reality programme and conducted in the clinic setting

Chronic phase

Italy

Piron 2009

Upper limb therapy that was delivered using a virtual reality telerehabilitation programme and that took place in the home

A programme of conventional upper limb exercises

Chronic phase

Italy

Smith 2012

An intervention to support the caregivers of stroke survivors by enhancing knowledge, skills and coping. Delivered via email, online chat sessions and online resources

Participants had access to some of the online resources

Not reported

USA

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Comparison of characteristics of studies included within the review
Comparison 1. Independence in activities of daily living: postintervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Independence in activities of daily living Show forest plot

2

661

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.00 [‐0.15, 0.15]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Independence in activities of daily living: postintervention
Comparison 2. Upper limb function: postintervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Upper limb function Show forest plot

2

46

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.65 [‐0.26, 7.57]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Upper limb function: postintervention