• Juan Li, Dongling Zhong, Jing Ye, Mingxing He, Xicen Liu, Hui Zheng, Rongjiang Jin, and Shao-Lan Zhang.
• School of Health Cultivation and Rehabilitation, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
• BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 19; 9 (7): e026844.

IntroductionMultiple rehabilitation therapies have been reported to be effective for poststroke balance impairment. However, the comparative effectiveness of these rehabilitation therapies is still unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to summarise evidence and identify the most effective rehabilitation therapy for poststroke balance impairment.Methods And AnalysisThe following databases will be searched: China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, the Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, Medline, Excerpt Medical Database (EMBASE), Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, from inception to June 2019. All randomised controlled trials that have used rehabilitation interventions to treat poststroke balance impairment will be included. The primary outcomes are the Berg Balance Scale, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (balance), the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke, as well as the function in sitting test, the Sitting Balance Scale, the Ottawa Sitting Scale, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, the Overall Balance Index and the Brunel Balance Assessment. The secondary outcomes include the Barthel Index, the Functional Ambulation Category Scale, fall rates, the Timed Up and Go test, the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and adverse events. To ensure that all relevant studies are included without personal bias, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Review Manager V.5.3 software will be used to make bias risk diagram and pairwise meta-analysis, while network data synthesis will be performed using WinBUGS V.1.4.3 and R software.Ethics And DisseminationEthics approval is not required for systematic review and network meta-analysis. The results will be submitted to a peer review journal or at a conference.Trial Registration NumberPROSPERO (CRD 42018107441).© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

13 keywords...

hide…