Positioning
Canadian Best Practices
Recommendations
- Spasticity and contractures should be treated or prevented by antispastic pattern positioning, range-of-motion exercises, stretching and/or splinting [Evidence Levels: Early- Level C; Late-Level C]. (1)
- In the assessment and prevention of shoulder pain, joint protection strategies include:
a. Positioning and supporting the limb to minimize pain [Evidence Level B]. (1) - Lower limb spasticity and contractures should be treated or prevented by antispastic pattern positioning, range-of-motion exercises, stretching and/or splinting. (SCORE) [Evidence Levels: Early-Level C; Late-Level C]. (1)
Sources
- Lindsay MP, Gubitz G, Bayley M, Hill MD, Davies-Schinkel C, Singh S, and Phillips S. Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care (Update 2010). On behalf of the Canadian Stroke Strategy Best Practices and Standards Writing Group. 2010; Ottawa, Ontario Canada: Canadian Stroke Network.
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
Patients less than a month post-stroke are identified as in acute stage of recovery.
Patients longer than 6 months post-stroke are identified as in chronic stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
*high quality = PEDro score 6-10
*fair quality = PEDro score 4-5
*poor quality = PEDro score ≤ 3
The PEDro scale was developed by the Physiotherapy Evidence Database to determine the quality of clinical trials. The PEDro scale consists of a checklist of 10 scored yes-or-no questions pertaining to the internal validity and the statistical information provided. Please click on the link for more information: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale/
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
Patients less than a month post-stroke are identified as in acute stage of recovery.
Patients longer than 6 months post-stroke are identified as in chronic stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
Patients less than a month post-stroke are identified as in acute stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
Patients between 1-6 months post-stroke are identified as in sub-acute stage of recovery.
Patients less than a month post-stroke are identified as in acute stage of recovery.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is an experimental design in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment group, or to a control (no treatment or alternative treatment) group. Effects of the experimental treatment are then compared statistically to results of the control treatment to determine effectiveness.
| 1a (Strong) | Well-designed meta-analysis, or 2 or more high quality RCTs (PEDro ≥ 6) showing similar findings |
| 1b(Moderate) | 1 RCT of high quality (PEDro ≥ 6) |
| 2a (Limited) | At least 1 fair quality RCT (PEDro = 4-5) |
| 2b (Limited) | At least one poor quality RCT (PEDro < 4) or well-designed non-experimental study (non-randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies with multiple baselines, single subject series with multiple baselines, etc.) |
| 3(Consensus) | Agreement by an expert panel or a group of professionals in the field or a number of pre-post studies all with similar results |
| 4 (Conflicting) | Conflicting evidence of 2 or more equally well-designed studies |
| 5 (No evidence) | No well-designed studies - only case studies/case descriptions or cohort studies/single subject series with no multiple baselines) |