Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare

Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.

Strength training in patients with myotonic dystrophy and hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial

A randomized clinical trial on the effects of strength training was performed in myotonic dystrophy (MyD) patients and patients with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy (HMSN). Training and most measurement tools involved the proximal lower extremity muscles. The participants trained 3 times a week for 24 weeks with weights adapted to their force. Strength was evaluated by isokinetically measured knee torque. Fatiguability was assessed by the time an isometric contraction could be sustained. Functional performance was measured by timed motor performance and by questionnaires on functional performance. Serum myoglobin (Mb) levels were determined to detect changes in muscle fiber membrane permeability. The MyD group included 33 participants, and the HMSN group included 29 participants. Within each diagnostic group, patients were individually matched and subsequently randomized for treatment allocation. In the MyD patients, none of the measurement techniques showed any training effect. Neither were there signs of deterioration caused by the training. In the HMSN group, knee torques increased. Timed motor performance did not change, although the questionnaires showed an improvement on items related to upper-leg function. Mb levels did not change significantly as a result of the training. In conclusion, the MyD group showed neither positive nor negative effects of the training protocol, whereas the training produced a moderate increase in strength and leg-related functional performance in the HMSN group.