The Efficacy of the proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) approach in stroke rehabilitation to improve basic activities of daily living and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Francesc Xavier Guiu-Tula, Rosa Cabanas-Valdés, Mercè Sitjà-Rabert, Gerard Urrútia, Natàlia Gómara-Toldrà, Francesc Xavier Guiu-Tula, Rosa Cabanas-Valdés, Mercè Sitjà-Rabert, Gerard Urrútia, Natàlia Gómara-Toldrà

Abstract

Introduction: Proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) is a widely used rehabilitation concept, although its efficacy has not yet been demonstrated in stroke survivors. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, assess and synthesise the potential benefits of using PNF to improve the activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QoL) of individuals with stroke.

Methods and analysis: A systematic electronic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and PEDro. We will include randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of PNF interventions conducted in stroke survivors up to April 2017. Two review authors will independently select relevant studies and will extract data using the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions approach and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The methodological quality will be assessed by using the PEDro scale. Finally, with the permitted numeric data, we will carry out a meta-analysis.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical considerations will not be required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-review journal. This systematic review aims to examine the effects of PNF (neurophysiological approach) in order to clarify its efficacy in improving ADL and QoL in the rehabilitation process of stroke survivors.

Prospero registration number: CRD42016039135.

Keywords: Quality of life; activities of daily life; kabat; pnf; proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation; stroke.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

References

    1. Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R, et al. . Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990-2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2014;383:245–54. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61953-4
    1. Hatem SM, Saussez G, Della Faille M, et al. . Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: a multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci 2016;10:442 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00442
    1. Dijkers M. ‘What’s in a name?’ The indiscriminate use of the ‘Quality of life label’, and the need to bring about clarity in conceptualizations. Int J Nurs Stud 2007;44:153–5. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.07.016
    1. Dijkers MP. Quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury: a review of conceptualization, measurement, and research findings. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005;42:87–110. 10.1682/JRRD.2004.08.0100
    1. Carr AJ, Higginson IJ. Are quality of life measures patient centred? BMJ 2001;322:1357–60.
    1. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics 2016;34:645–9. 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9
    1. Carod-Artal FJ, Egido JA. Quality of life after stroke: the importance of a good recovery. Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;27:204–14. 10.1159/000200461
    1. Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, et al. . Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76:27–32. 10.1016/S0003-9993(95)80038-7
    1. Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, et al. . Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014:CD001920 10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3
    1. Smedes F, Heidmann M, Schäfer C, et al. . The proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation-concept; the state of the evidence, a narrative review. Physical Therapy Reviews 2016;21:17–31. 10.1080/10833196.2016.1216764
    1. Adler SS, Beckers D, Buck M. PNF in Practice. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014.
    1. Almeida PMD, Santo A, Dias B, et al. . Hands-on physiotherapy interventions and stroke and International Classification of Functionality, Disability and Health outcomes: a systematic review. Eur J Physiother 2015;17:100–15. 10.3109/21679169.2015.1044466
    1. Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, et al. . Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;4:CD001920 10.1002/14651858.CD001920.pub3
    1. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, et al. . What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e87987 10.1371/journal.pone.0087987
    1. Winter J, Hunter S, Sim J, et al. . Hands-on therapy interventions for upper limb motor dysfunction following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;6:CD006609 10.1002/14651858.CD006609.pub2
    1. Pollock A, Baer G, Pomeroy V, et al. . Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;1.
    1. Van Peppen RP, Kwakkel G, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. . The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what’s the evidence? Clin Rehabil 2004;18:833–62. 10.1191/0269215504cr843oa
    1. Khadilkar A, Phillips K, Jean N, et al. . Ottawa panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for post-stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2006;13:11 10.1310/3TKX-7XEC-2DTG-XQKH
    1. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England: Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
    1. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. . Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687 10.1136/bmj.g1687
    1. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. . Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2003;83:713.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren