The influence of seated exercises on balance, mobility, and cardiometabolic health outcomes in individuals living with a stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Seated exercises could prove a safe alternative to traditional weight-bearing exercises in stroke, but its effects on mobility and modifiable risk factors of stroke are limited. The objective is to investigate the effects of seated exercises on balance, mobility, and cardiometabolic health in individuals living with a stroke. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane library were searched up to October 2022, in addition to the 2018 Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation. METHODS: Trials that incorporated predominantly seated exercises and outcomes of balance, mobility, or cardiometabolic health in those living with a stroke were included. Quality assessments of randomized controlled trials were done using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool. RESULTS: = 337) with five trials including participants < 6 months post-stroke. Seated exercises improved balance (standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.50, 1.02) and mobility (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.24,1.13) outcomes compared with control. Sensitivity analysis of gait speed found no significant change (mean difference (MD) = 0.33 m/s; 95% CI, -0.23, 0.89) following seated exercises compared with control. One trial found no significant changes in blood pressure. Most trials (78%) were assessed as having some concern for bias. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest beneficial effects of seated exercises on balance and mobility outcomes in those with a stroke, compared with standard therapy or an attention control. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of seated exercises on outcomes of cardiometabolic health, particularly prominent modifiable risk factors for stroke. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022307426.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".