Does more rehabilitation lead to better upper limb outcomes after stroke? A systematic review

Manush PatelInes SerradaBrenton Hordacre^*

• University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

Abstract Purpose: To determine whether increased rehabilitation duration improved upper-limb outcomes in people with subacute and chronic stroke. Where possible, we explored evidence for dose-response relationship or a ceiling effect for recovery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo. Randomised trials delivering the same type of upper-limb rehabilitation, but with a >50% greater duration in one group (high dose) compared to another (low dose) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses explored effects of increased rehabilitation duration and subgroup analyses explored a 50-100%, 100-150% and ≥200% increases in dose. Results: Four studies (n=151) were included. Fugl-Meyer Assessment data were available from a single multi-arm trial, from which two intervention-control comparisons were derived based on therapy dose (n=25), demonstrating greater rehabilitation duration led to improvement on the (p = 0.009). Meta-analyses including three studies (n=89) found greater rehabilitation duration led to improvement on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (p = 0.009) and a non-significant effect on the Action Research Arm Test (p = 0.266), both with a low certainty of evidence. Subgroup analyses showed that smaller dose increases (50–150%) had limited benefits but doses ≥200% led to significant improvements in upper-limb function on the Action Research Arm Test (MD = 13.86, 95% CI: 3.43 to 24.29; p = 0.009). Conclusion: Greater rehabilitation duration can lead to better upper-limb outcomes; however, an increase of at least 200% in duration might be required.