Effects of spinal mobilization on physical function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of spinal mobilization on physical function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Hao, Jie (AUTHOR), Yao, Yao (AUTHOR), Remis, Andréas (AUTHOR), Zhu, Dongqi (AUTHOR), Sun, Yuxiao (AUTHOR), Wu, Siyao (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Neurological Sciences. Oct2024, Vol. 45 Issue 10, p4711-4720. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Vital capacity (Respiration), Walking speed, Stroke rehabilitation, Physical mobility, Randomized controlled trials |
| Abstract: | This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize current evidence regarding the effects of spinal mobilization on physical function in patients with stroke. Three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of spinal mobilization to conventional therapy were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the effects of spinal mobilization. Nine randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 294 patients with stroke. All included studies were evaluated as good or above for quality assessment. No adverse events related to spinal mobilization were reported. Compared to conventional therapy, spinal mobilization demonstrated significantly improved forward head posture (SMD: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.46, p < 0.001); there were no between-group differences on forced vital capacity (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.88, p = 0.06), forced expiratory volume (SMD: 0.33, 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.77, p = 0.15), balance (SMD: 0.36, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.77, p = 0.08), gait speed (SMD: 0.48, 95% CI: -0.44 to 1.40, p = 0.31), and trunk function (SMD: 0.79, 95% CI: -0.17 to 1.75, p = 0.11). Cervical mobilization significantly improved forward head posture; however, no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Clinicians may consider spinal mobilization as an adjunctive intervention in stroke rehabilitation to address posture-related impairments to expand treatment strategy and optimize quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Neurological Sciences is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize current evidence regarding the effects of spinal mobilization on physical function in patients with stroke. Three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of spinal mobilization to conventional therapy were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the effects of spinal mobilization. Nine randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 294 patients with stroke. All included studies were evaluated as good or above for quality assessment. No adverse events related to spinal mobilization were reported. Compared to conventional therapy, spinal mobilization demonstrated significantly improved forward head posture (SMD: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.46, p < 0.001); there were no between-group differences on forced vital capacity (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.88, p = 0.06), forced expiratory volume (SMD: 0.33, 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.77, p = 0.15), balance (SMD: 0.36, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.77, p = 0.08), gait speed (SMD: 0.48, 95% CI: -0.44 to 1.40, p = 0.31), and trunk function (SMD: 0.79, 95% CI: -0.17 to 1.75, p = 0.11). Cervical mobilization significantly improved forward head posture; however, no significant differences were found in other outcomes. Clinicians may consider spinal mobilization as an adjunctive intervention in stroke rehabilitation to address posture-related impairments to expand treatment strategy and optimize quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 15901874 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10072-024-07603-8 |
