[95% CIs calculated by the CAP Editor.] Evidence Ku-0059436 nmr is accumulating of the profound benefits conferred by aerobic training on cardiovascular function, mobility, brain health, and overall quality of life after stroke. However, when subjected to the rigors of systematic review, available data have failed to demonstrate superiority of such training over traditional therapies in optimising recovery post-stroke (Moseley et al 2005). The trial by Globas and colleagues contributes in important ways to elucidating the role fitness

training plays in improving cardiovascular function and mobility after stroke. Level 2 evidence (ie, randomised controlled trial with < 100 subjects) is provided regarding the safety and effectiveness of a moderately intense training protocol for older individuals in the chronic post-stroke period (subjects were 5–10 years older than those in most previous trials). Considering the average age of stroke rehabilitation participants is > 70 years, use of a representative cohort speaks to the relevance of the study. Mean gain in exercise capacity of the training group (5.5 mL/kg/min or 1.6 metabolic equivalents, METS) is clinically meaningful – 1 MET improvement is associated with selleck chemicals significantly fewer adverse

events in people with coronary artery disease (Hambrecht et al 2004) and 12% increase in survival of men with cardiac disease (Myers et al 2002). Clinically meaningful change was also achieved in the 6 minute walk (ie, 49 m) but not comfortable walking speed (0.14 m/s) (Perera et al 2006) and Berg Balance Scale (5.8 points) (Stevenson 2001). The significant training-induced improvement in the SF-12 mental subscore is of interest, particularly given the recent links drawn between brain health and cardiovascular conditioning after stroke (Quaney et al 2009). That benefits were largely sustained

at 12-month follow-up is encouraging. Use of a crossover design helped deal with the lack of dose equivalency in the intervention protocols (39 versus ~24 sessions in training and usual care groups, respectively) but unequal exposure precludes drawing conclusions about the ‘relative’ effectiveness of treadmill training. The troubling statement ‘current conventional care Unoprostone for chronic stroke survivors in Germany does not lead to improvements over 3 months’ is counter to findings reported elsewhere (Duncan et al 2003) and warrants further attention. We are reaching the stage where large multi-centred trials of aerobic training after stroke are necessary to answer definitively the central question of what attributes define ‘responders’ to this intervention. “
“Summary of: Hunter D et al (2012) Realignment treatment for medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis: randomised trial. Ann Rheum Dis 71: 1658–1665. [Prepared by Kåre B Hagen and Margreth Grotle, CAP Editors.