Cited by 134Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementDysphagia Assessment and Management

Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke

Open access
Bernhardt, Julie, Thuy, Matthew NT, Collier, Janice M, Legg, Lynn A·2009·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Very early mobilisation is performed in some stroke units and recommended in acute stroke clinical guidelines. It is unclear whether very early mobilisation independently improves outcome after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of very early mobilisation (commenced within 48 hours of stroke) compared with conventional care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2008). In addition, we searched 25 databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2007), EMBASE (1980 to September 2007), CINAHL (1982 to December 2006), and AMED (1985 to January 2007). We also searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched January 2007) and the Chinese medical database Wanfangdata (searched March 2007), handsearched journals, searched reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Unconfounded RCTs of acute stroke patients, comparing an intervention group that started out of bed mobilisation within 48 hours of stroke and aimed to reduce time to first mobilisation and/or increase the amount or frequency (or both) of mobilisation, with conventional care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author eliminated obviously irrelevant records; two review authors independently applied selection criteria to remaining studies. The primary outcome was death or poor outcome (dependency or institutionalisation) at the end of scheduled follow up. Secondary outcomes included mortality, dependency, institutionalisation, activities of daily living (ADLs), quality of life, time to walking, adverse events (e.g. deep vein thrombosis) and patient mood. MAIN RESULTS: One study, involving 71 participants, was included. In this study the experimental group had earlier and more frequent mobilisation than the control group (median 18.1 hours post stroke for experimental group versus 30.8 hours control; 167 minutes of mobilisation (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 305) during admission for experimental group versus 69 (IQR 31 to 115) minutes control). Fewer patients who received early and frequent mobilisation were dead or disabled at three months, but this was not statistically significant and the confidence intervals were wide (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.79, P = 0.42). No significant difference on any secondary outcomes of interest were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of routine very early mobilisation after stroke, compared with conventional care. More research is required to determine the benefits and harms of very early mobilisation after stroke.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd006187.pub2

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]4. Duan 2006 {published data only} Duan G. Early rehabilitation nursing in patients with stroke. Medicine World 2006;6:139-41.
  2. [38]38. metaanalysis or meta-analysis or meta analysis or systematic review).tw. 39. program evaluation/ 40. or/21-39 41. 20 and 40

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernhardt, J., Thuy, M. N., Collier, J. M., & Legg, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Austin Health (AU)
  • Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-21
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
CD006187-CD006187
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W3018453447
Cited by
134
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Glasgow
  • Universität Heidelberg
  • University of Melbourne
  • Tel Aviv University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
Keywords
acute stroke, early mobilization, stroke rehabilitation, functional recovery, dependency, activities of daily living, walking ability, quality of life, length of hospital stay, deep vein thrombosis, patient mood, stroke unit, usual care comparison, institutionalization, walking endurance, walking distance, walking motivation
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Early Ambulation, Humans, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review