Cardiovascular Conditioning for Comfortable Gait Speed and Total Distance Walked During the Chronic Stage of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of cardiovascular conditioning on comfortable gait speed and total distance walked when initiated in the chronic stage of stroke through a meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched from 1980 to June 2012. A study was selected if (1) it was a randomized controlled trial; (2) individuals in the study were entered into the study at or over 6 months post stroke; (3) cardiorespiratory training was initiated during the chronic stage of stroke; and (4) study participants were ≥18 years of age. A standardized mean difference (SMD ± SE and 95% confidence interval [CI]) was calculated for comfortable gait speed and/or 6-minute walk test (6MWT). results from all studies were then pooled using a random effects model. Treatment effect sizes were interpreted as small, ≯0.2; moderate, ≯0.5; or large, ≯0.8. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) tool. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. The analysis demonstrated a moderate and significant effect on 6MWT post treatment (SMD = 0.581 ± 0.277; 95% CI, -0.037 to 1.125; P = .036) with an improvement of 111.4 m to a pooled average of 357.7 m. No significant improvement in comfortable gait speed was noted post treatment (SMD = 0.159 ± 0.124; 95% CI, -0.085 to 0.402; P = .202) or at follow-up (SMD = 0.248 ± 0.256; 95% CI, -0.253 to 0.750; P = .332). CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular conditioning resulted in clinically relevant gains in walking distance of over 100 m post treatment on the 6MWT when initiated during the chronic stage of stroke. These results demonstrate that individuals in the chronic stage of stroke can still benefit from interventions to improve gait and mobility. This has important implications for outpatient and community-based programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".