Comparing Interventions Used in Randomized Controlled Trials of Upper Extremity Motor Rehabilitation Post-stroke in High-Income Countries and Low-to-Middle-Income Countries

Sarvenaz Mehrabi; Cecilia Flores-Sandoval; Jamie L Fleet; Lindsay Cameron; Robert Teasell

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2024.11.001

Comparing Interventions Used in Randomized Controlled Trials of Upper Extremity Motor Rehabilitation Post-stroke in High-Income Countries and Low-to-Middle-Income Countries

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024 Nov 12:S0003-9993(24)01344-3. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2024.11.001. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Sarvenaz Mehrabi¹, Cecilia Flores-Sandoval¹, Jamie L Fleet², Lindsay Cameron¹, Robert Teasell³

Affiliations

¹ Lawson Research Institute, London, ON, Canada.
² Lawson Research Institute, London, ON, Canada; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada; St. Joseph's Health Care London, London, ON, Canada.
³ Lawson Research Institute, London, ON, Canada; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada; St. Joseph's Health Care London, London, ON, Canada. Electronic address: Robert.Teasell@sjhc.london.on.ca.

PMID: 39537002
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2024.11.001

Abstract

Objective: To identify and compare interventions for upper extremity (UE) motor recovery poststroke in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs).

Data source: Systematic searches were conducted for RCTs published in English in 5 databases (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) up to April 2021, in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Study selection: RCTs, including crossover design, were included if they were in English and evaluated an intervention for poststroke UE motor rehabilitation, in an adult population (≥18y) diagnosed with stroke.

Data extraction: Data on country of origin and type of intervention in each RCT were extracted using a data extraction template in Covidence software. Study screenings and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers.

Data synthesis: A total of 1276 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, with 978 RCTs conducted in HICs and 298 in LMICs. A significantly larger proportion of RCTs evaluating robotics and task-specific training interventions were conducted in HICs, compared to LMICs (P<.009). In contrast, a higher proportion of RCTs conducted in LMICs examined acupuncture (P<.001) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (P=.001) when compared to HICs.

Conclusions: Poststroke rehabilitation in LMICs is conducted in a lower resource environment when compared to HICs. Some differences exist in the use of UE motor rehabilitation interventions between LMICs and HICs such as robotics, task-specific training, rTMS, and acupuncture; however, there was no significant difference between HICs and LMICs for most interventions.

Keywords: Income; Randomized controlled trials; Rehabilitation; Stroke; Upper extremity.