Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke: a systematic review.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to determine if biofeedback during lower limb activities (including walking) is more effective than usual therapy in improving those activities post-stroke and whether benefits are maintained beyond the intervention.
Results Summary
Biofeedback improved performance of lower limb activities more than usual therapy, with a standardized mean difference of 0.50 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.70). The study concluded that biofeedback is more effective but noted the need for further research on long-term effects.
Population
People who have had a stroke.
Effective Dosage
Not specified
Duration
Not specified
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Biofeedback (any type delivered by any signal or sense) delivered concurrently during practice of sitting, standing up, standing or walking | increase | performance of activities | People who have had a stroke | SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70 | improved performance of activities more than usual therapy | #1 |
Biofeedback (any type delivered by any signal or sense) delivered concurrently during practice of sitting, standing up, standing or walking | increase | performance of activities | People who have had a stroke | - | is more effective than usual therapy in improving performance of activities | #2 |
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 with the same amount of practice without biofeedback. OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of activity congruent with the activity trained. RESULTS: Eighteen trials including 429 participants met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included trials was moderately high, with a mean PEDro score of 6.2 out of 10. The pooled effect size was calculated as a standardised mean difference (SMD) because different outcome measures were used. Biofeedback improved performance of activities more than usual therapy (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70). CONCLUSION: Biofeedback is more effective than usual therapy in improving performance of activities. Further research is required to determine the long-term effect on learning. Given that many biofeedback machines are relatively inexpensive, biofeedback could be utilised widely in clinical practice. [Stanton R, Ada L, Dean CM, Preston E (2016) Biofeedback improves performance in lower limb activities more than usual therapy in people following stroke: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy63: 11-16].