SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Early mobilization”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

474 records · Page 27Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of RIPK1 inhibitor, SAR443820, in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (HIMALAYA): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: RIPK1, a protein regulating inflammatory signalling and cell death, is implicated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) pathophysiology. SAR443820 is a selective, oral, CNS-penetrant, reversible RIPK1 inhibitor. We aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of SAR443820 in participants with ALS. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted at 63 clinical sites in 13 countries (Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA). Adults (aged 18-80 years) with a diagnosis of possible ALS, clinically probable ALS, clinically probable laboratory-supported ALS, or clinically definite ALS, in accordance with the revised El Escorial World Federation of Neurology criteria, were randomly assigned (2:1) by use of a stratified block design (blocks of three) to receive either 20 mg SAR443820 orally twice per day or matching placebo in the 24-week double-blind period. Randomisation was done centrally using interactive response technology and stratified by geographical region of trial site, region of ALS onset, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, and use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol. Participants, care providers, investigators, and outcomes assessors were masked to trial intervention. The primary outcome was a change in ALS Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score from baseline to week 24 and was calculated for all participants who had an ALSFRS-R total score available at baseline and at week 24. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned participants receiving one dose or more of trial intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05237284) and was terminated early. FINDINGS: Between April 13, 2022, and July 17, 2023, 397 participants were screened and 305 randomly assigned to SAR443820 (n=203) or placebo (n=102); six were excluded from the primary analysis due to missing baseline ALSFRS-R values. Mean age was 56·9 years (SD 11·5); 183 (60%) participants were male and 122 (40%) were female. Least squares mean change in ALSFRS-R from baseline to week 24 was -6·73 (95% CI -7·48 to -5·98) for SAR443820 group (n=169) and -6·32 (-7·36 to -5·27) for placebo group (n=87). There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups (least squares mean difference -0·41 [95% CI -1·71 to 0·88]). Participants in the SAR443820 group had higher incidence of adverse events (171 [85%] of 202 vs placebo 80 [78%] of 102) and treatment discontinuations (28 [14%] of 202 vs placebo five [5%] of 102), with elevated hepatic enzymes being the most common cause. Nine deaths occurred in the double-blind period (seven [3%] of 202 in the SAR443820 group and two [2%] of 102 in the placebo group); none was attributed to SAR443820. INTERPRETATION: SAR443820 did not show clinical benefit and was associated with higher hepatic enzyme increase, indicating that further clinical development of SAR443820 in ALS is not warranted. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Manual, digital, and AI tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte scoring: a secondary analysis of the APHINITY randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Stromal tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are prognostic in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer, but their role in the context of dual HER2 blockade remains undefined. We evaluated manual, digital, and artificial intelligence (AI)-based sTIL quantification, together with AI-derived spatial metrics, for prognostic and treatment-benefit stratification using tumour samples from the phase 3 APHINITY trial. METHODS: In the APHINITY trial, 4805 patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with pertuzumab or chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with placebo. Median follow-up was 74·1 months (IQR 68·3-75·4). We analysed 4262 haematoxylin and eosin-stained images using manual assessment, an automated digital approach, AI-based lymphocyte quantification (AI percentage lymphocytes), and two AI-derived spatial features (AI-TIL and immune hotspot). Interobserver reproducibility was assessed in 262 randomly chosen tumour samples scored independently by five pathologists. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess associations between TIL levels and invasive disease-free survival (primary outcome in APHINITY), distant recurrence-free interval, and overall survival. The heterogeneity of pertuzumab benefit was evaluated using subgroup analyses, subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analyses, and nested Cox models with treatment-by-biomarker interaction terms. FINDINGS: Manual scoring showed high interobserver reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient 0·84 [95% CI 0·79-0·88]). Concordance between manual and automated methods was modest. AI-based scoring (AI percentage lymphocytes) reclassified 120 (11·6%) of 1035 node-positive tumours from immune-low (by manual scoring) to immune-high; this subgroup of patients showed greater separation of 5-year invasive disease-free survival curves between pertuzumab and placebo groups compared with patients whose tumours were concordantly classified as immune-low by both manual and AI-based approaches. Higher levels of TILs were associated with improved invasive disease-free survival for all sTIL measurement approaches and spatial measurements (hazard ratios [HRs] 0·41-0·93). Pertuzumab was associated with improved invasive disease-free survival at higher sTIL levels across all measurement approaches (HRs 0·36-0·48), but was not associated with higher values of spatial measures. The largest 6-year absolute improvements with pertuzumab were observed in patients with node-positive disease whose tumours scored in the highest level of immune infiltration of manual sTIL scoring (≥70·0%; mean absolute improvement 12·1 percentage points [SD 2·8]). In nested prognostic and predictive models, AI-based immune hotspot scores provided the most consistent additional information when combined with any sTIL measurement (all p<0·010). INTERPRETATION: Standardised manual sTIL scoring was reproducible, and digital and AI-based methods showed consistent prognostic stratification and potential for treatment-benefit stratification despite only modest correlation between platforms. AI spatial metrics provided complementary information beyond sTIL density and could support more scalable immune assessment. Future studies are needed to validate these approaches in independent cohorts and to clarify their clinical utility for stratifying contemporary HER2-directed therapies. FUNDING: None.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The glucagon and GLP-1 receptor dual agonist DD01 for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and steatohepatitis (DD01-DN-02): 12-week results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) is a major public health problem arising in the context of metabolic syndrome and obesity. DD01 is a liver-targeted GLP-1 receptor and glucagon dual agonist being investigated for the treatment of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and MASH. The DD01-DN-02 trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DD01 in adults with MASLD or MASH; this initial analysis reports prespecified 12-week outcomes to assess early hepatic effects. METHODS: DD01-DN-02 is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 12 outpatient clinical sites in the USA. Adults aged 18-70 years with obesity or who were overweight (BMI ≥25 kg/m2) were included in the study. Patients with MASLD or MASH underwent liver biopsy and MRI-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and were eligible if liver fat content was 10% or higher with metabolic risk factors, or if the biopsy confirmed MASH with a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score of at least 4. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous DD01 40 mg or matched placebo over 48 weeks, dose-escalated over 2 weeks, using a centrally administered interactive response technology system. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated by an independent statistician. Participants, investigators, study staff, outcome assessors, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants having at least a 30% relative reduction in liver fat by MRI-PDFF at week 12, which was analysed in all randomly assigned participants receiving at least one dose of study drug or placebo. Safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Missing primary endpoint data were handled using multiple imputation under a missing-at-random assumption. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06410924) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2024, and Jan 30, 2025, 67 eligible participants were enrolled, of whom 33 were randomly assigned to DD01 and 34 to placebo. The mean age of participants was 48·4 years (SD 10·6), 42 (63%) were female, 25 (37%) were male, 57 (85%) were White, and 52 (78%) participants had biopsy-confirmed MASH. At week 12, 25 (76%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 had a 30% or higher reduction in liver fat versus four (12%) of 34 participants receiving placebo (adjusted common odds ratio 28·8 [95% CI 7·2-115·2]; adjusted relative risk 6·3 [95% CI 2·5-15·9]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 28 (85%) of 33 participants receiving DD01 and 23 (68%) of 34 participants receiving placebo. The most common adverse events were nausea (18 [55%] of 33 participants assigned DD01; six [18%] of 34 participants assigned placebo), diarrhoea (nine [27%] of 33; six [18%] of 34), and vomiting (ten [30%] of 33; four [12%] of 34). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in four (12%) of 33 participants in the DD01 group and one (3%) of 34 participants in the placebo group. Two (6%) treatment-emergent serious adverse events occurred in the DD01 group (abdominal pain and acute cholecystitis) and zero in the placebo group. No deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: In this prespecified 12-week primary analysis, DD01 produced rapid reductions in liver fat compared with placebo, supporting further evaluation in long-term studies. FUNDING: D&D Pharmatech, Neuraly.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I² not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I² not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I² not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long‑term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗