Associations Between Time After Stroke and Exercise Training Outcomes: A Meta‐Regression Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Knowledge gaps exist regarding the effect of time elapsed after stroke on the effectiveness of exercise training interventions, offering incomplete guidance to clinicians. Methods and Results To determine the associations between time after stroke and 6-minute walk distance, 10-meter walk time, cardiorespiratory fitness and balance (Berg Balance Scale score [BBS]) in exercise training interventions, relevant studies in post-stroke populations were identified by systematic review. Time after stroke as continuous or dichotomized (≤3 months versus >3 months, and ≤6 months versus >6 months) variables and weighted mean differences in postintervention outcomes were examined in meta-regression analyses adjusted for study baseline mean values (pre-post comparisons) or baseline mean values and baseline control-intervention differences (controlled comparisons). Secondary models were adjusted additionally for mean age, sex, and aerobic exercise intensity, dose, and modality. We included 148 studies. Earlier exercise training initiation was associated with larger pre-post differences in mobility; studies initiated ≤3 months versus >3 months after stroke were associated with larger differences (weighted mean differences [95% confidence interval]) in 6-minute walk distance (36.3 meters; 95% CI, 14.2-58.5), comfortable 10-meter walk time (0.13 m/s; 95% CI, 0.06-0.19) and fast 10-meter walk time (0.16 m/s; 95% CI, 0.03-0.3), in fully adjusted models. Initiation ≤3 months versus >3 months was not associated with cardiorespiratory fitness but was associated with a higher but not clinically important Berg Balance Scale score difference (2.9 points; 95% CI, 0.41-5.5). In exercise training versus control studies, initiation ≤3 months was associated with a greater difference in only postintervention 6-minute walk distance (baseline-adjusted 27.3 meters; 95% CI, 6.1-48.5; fully adjusted, 24.9 meters; 95% CI, 0.82-49.1; a similar association was seen for ≤6 months versus >6 months after stroke (fully adjusted, 26.6 meters; 95% CI, 2.6-50.6). Conclusions There may be a clinically meaningful benefit to mobility outcomes when exercise is initiated within 3 months and up to 6 months after stroke.
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 | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".