Chanruengvanich 2006.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | Unit of randomisation: participant | |
Participants | Place of recruitment: hospital (centre specialising in neurology) Numbers randomised: total: 72; I: 36; C: 36 % Completing final follow‐up: 86% Inclusion criteria: > 6 weeks since TIA or minor stroke; energy expenditure < 1000 Kcal/week; age > 45 years; no cognitive impairment; able to exercise; BP ≤ 180/100 mmHg; fasting blood sugar ≤ 150 mg% Exclusion criteria: complications e.g. heart attack or chest pain Type of stroke (%): not reported Mean age (SD): I: 62.8 (7.4); C: 63.1 (7.1) Gender (% women): I: 68%; C: 68% Ethnicity: not reported Socio‐economic or socio‐demographic status:
|
|
Interventions | Intervention details (components, length, frequency): 12 week self‐regulated exercise program; first week ‐ educational meeting (topics included disease management, diet, exercise and stress management); second week ‐ instruction in self‐regulation techniques and recommended exercises (using group demonstration and video); third week ‐ home visit from researcher to identify problems; second to twelfth weeks – moderate exercise for a minimum of 15 minutes 2 to 3 times per day (recorded in exercise diary) with energy expenditure target 1000 kcal per week; researcher made weekly telephone calls to encourage participants to adhere to the exercise program Location: community Mode of delivery: patient education, home visit and telephone follow‐up Personnel responsible for delivery: researcher/investigator Timing post‐stroke: > 6 weeks Control: usual care |
|
Outcomes | 12 weeks: SBP; DBP; total cholesterol; HDL | |
General Information | Funding: this research was supported by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation Country of origin: Thailand Publication language: English |
|
Notes | Analysis method: not stated (per protocol) Risk of bias: unclear |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | "Each patient was randomly assigned" ‐ method not reported |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Missing data reported by group Attrition: I: 5/36 (1 withdrew; 4 illness prohibited exercise); C: 3/36 (3 withdrew) Excluded from analysis: I: 0; C: 2/36 (2 excluded to balance the groups) Judgement: reasons for missing data reported and review authors judge that they are unlikely to be related to study outcomes |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Study protocol available and all outcomes are reported in the pre‐specified way |
Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |