22. European Stroke Conference 907 Meta-analysis and reviews The “what, who and how” of scanning training for visual field loss after stroke: a comprehen-sive mixed methods systematic literature review C. Hazelton1, A. Pollock2, M. Brady3, G. Walsh4 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian Uni-versity, Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM1, Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Re-search Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, 2, Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM3, De-partment of Vision Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian Univeristy, Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM4 Background Loss of visual field persists in 21% of stroke survivors and affects functional abilities, quality of life and rehabilitation. A recent Cochrane review suggests that scanning training may be an effective rehabilitation method. We carried out a comprehensive examination of the research evidence to ex-plore which scanning training interventions appear to work, the patient populations for whom they work and the mechanisms of how they do so. Methods A mixed-methods systematic literature review. Search strategy: a comprehensive search including bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED), registers of ongoing trials, charity websites and reference lists. Inclusion criteria: any published paper (quantitative, qualitative or non-research) specifically on scanning training for visual field loss due to stroke in adults. Quality Appraisal: carried out using appraisal forms based on published criteria. Analysis: 3 concurrent syntheses: (a) Quantitative studies of effectiveness - using narrative analysis and statistical pooling (b) Qualitative studies of users’ perspectives - using thematic analysis (c) Theoretical models underlying interventions - using thematic analysis Results Bibliographic searching identified 2443 papers: 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Ten studies were included in analysis (a): meta-analysis of data from 4 RCTs shows training is more effective than control in measures of reading (SMD 0.62, 95% CI 0.1, 1.14). Only one study contained qual-itative evidence relevant to analysis (b). Ten papers, of varying methodologies, present models of scanning training action and have been included in analysis (c). The results of the evidence syntheses will be presented. Conclusion Visual field loss has a major impact on life after stroke: this review evidence allows us to more fully understand scanning training and will inform research to support clinical practice. Future research must include qualitative methods to explore users’ perspectives of training. 826 © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel Scientific Programme 908 Meta-analysis and reviews Effectiveness of mirror therapy on the recovery of motor skills in terms of function, disability and participation in stroke patients: a systematic review A. Juchters1, L. Pernet2, E. Kerckhofs3 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, BELGIUM1, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, BEL-GIUM2, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, BELGIUM3 Background: The aim of this study was to systematically review the effect of mirror therapy (MT) in stroke patients on motor skills recovery to inform clinical practice and further research. Methods: Data sources: A search was performed on electronic databases (PUBMED, WEB OF KNOWLEDGE and PEDRO) from their inception to November 2011. Review methods: search terms were used to identify articles that investigate the effect of mirror therapy on motor recovery in stroke patients. 6 RCTs (evidence level B) are included with variable methodological quality, as-sessed by means of a quality checklist of NICE Guidelines and completed with items of Delphi list by one reviewer. Results: Main reasons for exclusion were study design and involvement of other pathology (CRPS). The included trials all have B for level of evidence. Each study showed a positive effect of MT. Studies that included a follow-up measurement all showed significant differences in advantage of MT. Only the study from Michielsen et al. found no sign. effect but this can be due to other study parameters. Conclusion: There is moderate quality of evidence that MT improves motor skills recovery. Each study showed a positive effect of MT. The relationship between any patient characteristics and/or intervention characteristics and the results remains unclear. But this review was able to clarify the needs and requirements for further investigation.
Karger_ESC London_2013
To see the actual publication please follow the link above