Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND:There is increasing focus on earlier rehabilitation in patients with traumatic or hypoxic brain injury or stroke. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury. METHODS:We searched M...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Christian Gunge Riberholt, Vibeke Wagner, Jane Lindschou, Christian Gluud, Jesper Mehlsen, Kirsten Møller
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237136
id doaj-e9a3b269048a4fc68801a1da90935eb2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e9a3b269048a4fc68801a1da90935eb22021-03-03T22:00:54ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01158e023713610.1371/journal.pone.0237136Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Christian Gunge RiberholtVibeke WagnerJane LindschouChristian GluudJesper MehlsenKirsten MøllerBACKGROUND:There is increasing focus on earlier rehabilitation in patients with traumatic or hypoxic brain injury or stroke. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury. METHODS:We searched Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, four other databases and 13 selected clinical trial registries until April 2020. Eligible randomised clinical trials compared early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury and were analysed conducting random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS:We identified four randomised clinical trials (total n = 385 patients) with severe acquired brain injury (stroke 86% and traumatic brain injury 13%). Two trials were at low risk and two at high risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation vs. standard care on mortality or poor functional outcome at end of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.53; I2 0%; very low certainty) or at maximal follow-up (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; I2 0%; very low certainty). We found evidence against an effect on quality of life at maximal follow-up. The proportion of patients with at least one serious adverse event did not differ at end of intervention or at maximal follow-up. For most comparisons, TSA suggested that further trials are needed. CONCLUSIONS:We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury. Early mobilisation appeared not to exert a major impact on quality of life. This systematic review highlights the insufficient evidence in patients with severe brain injury, and no firm conclusions can be drawn from these data. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Protocol uploaded to PROSPERO: April 2018 (revised October 2018, CRD42018088790).https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237136
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Christian Gunge Riberholt
Vibeke Wagner
Jane Lindschou
Christian Gluud
Jesper Mehlsen
Kirsten Møller
spellingShingle Christian Gunge Riberholt
Vibeke Wagner
Jane Lindschou
Christian Gluud
Jesper Mehlsen
Kirsten Møller
Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Christian Gunge Riberholt
Vibeke Wagner
Jane Lindschou
Christian Gluud
Jesper Mehlsen
Kirsten Møller
author_sort Christian Gunge Riberholt
title Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
title_short Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
title_full Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
title_fullStr Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
title_full_unstemmed Early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.
title_sort early head-up mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2020-01-01
description BACKGROUND:There is increasing focus on earlier rehabilitation in patients with traumatic or hypoxic brain injury or stroke. This systematic review evaluates the benefits and harms of early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury. METHODS:We searched Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, four other databases and 13 selected clinical trial registries until April 2020. Eligible randomised clinical trials compared early head-up mobilisation versus standard care in patients with severe acquired brain injury and were analysed conducting random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS:We identified four randomised clinical trials (total n = 385 patients) with severe acquired brain injury (stroke 86% and traumatic brain injury 13%). Two trials were at low risk and two at high risk of bias. We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation vs. standard care on mortality or poor functional outcome at end of the intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.53; I2 0%; very low certainty) or at maximal follow-up (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; I2 0%; very low certainty). We found evidence against an effect on quality of life at maximal follow-up. The proportion of patients with at least one serious adverse event did not differ at end of intervention or at maximal follow-up. For most comparisons, TSA suggested that further trials are needed. CONCLUSIONS:We found no evidence of a difference between early mobilisation versus standard care for patients with severe acquired brain injury. Early mobilisation appeared not to exert a major impact on quality of life. This systematic review highlights the insufficient evidence in patients with severe brain injury, and no firm conclusions can be drawn from these data. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Protocol uploaded to PROSPERO: April 2018 (revised October 2018, CRD42018088790).
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237136
work_keys_str_mv AT christiangungeriberholt earlyheadupmobilisationversusstandardcareforpatientswithsevereacquiredbraininjuryasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT vibekewagner earlyheadupmobilisationversusstandardcareforpatientswithsevereacquiredbraininjuryasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT janelindschou earlyheadupmobilisationversusstandardcareforpatientswithsevereacquiredbraininjuryasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT christiangluud earlyheadupmobilisationversusstandardcareforpatientswithsevereacquiredbraininjuryasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT jespermehlsen earlyheadupmobilisationversusstandardcareforpatientswithsevereacquiredbraininjuryasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT kirstenmøller earlyheadupmobilisationversusstandardcareforpatientswithsevereacquiredbraininjuryasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
_version_ 1714813887512051712