Question: Is biofeedback during the practice of lower limb activities after stroke more effective than usual therapy in improving those activities, and are any benefits maintained beyond the intervention? Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials with a PEDro score>4. Participants: People who have had a stroke. Intervention: Biofeedback (any type delivered by any signal or sense) delivered concurrently during practice of sitting, standing up, standing or walking compared to the same amount of activity practice without biofeedback. Outcome measures: Continuous measures of activity congruent with the activity trained. Results: 18 trials including 429 participants met the inclusion criteria and contained data suitable for analysis. The quality of the included trials was moderately high with a mean PEDro score of 6.2/10. The pooled effect size was calculated as standardised mean difference (SMD) since different outcome measures were used. Biofeedback improved performance of activities moderately more than usual therapy (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70). There was insufficient data available to estimate the effect beyond the intervention. Conclusion: Biofeedback is more effective than usual therapy in improving performance of activities. Further research is required to determine the effect on learning. Given that many biofeedback machines are relatively inexpensive, biofeedback could be utilised widely in clinical practice.
|Number of pages||1|
|Journal||Abstracts Presented at the SMART STROKES 2016 Conference, 25–26 August 2016, Canberra, ACT|
|Publication status||Published - 2016|
|Event||SMART STROKES 2016 Conference - Canberra, ACT|
Duration: 25 Aug 2016 → 26 Aug 2016