You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Rehabilitation medicine
Protocol
Telerehabilitation for lower extremity recovery poststroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
  1. Sarah Park1,2,
  2. Ada Tang3,
  3. Courtney Pollock1,4,5,
  4. Brodie M Sakakibara1,2,5,6
  1. 1Faculty of Medicine, Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  2. 2Faculty of Medicine, Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
  3. 3School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Faculty of Medicine, Physical Therapy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  5. 5GF Strong Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  6. 6Faculty of Medicine, Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Brodie M Sakakibara; brodie.sakakibara{at}ubc.ca

Abstract

Introduction Approximately 30% of individuals with stroke report unmet lower extremity recovery needs after formal hospital-based rehabilitation programmes have ended. Telerehabilitation can mitigate issues surrounding accessibility of rehabilitation services by providing ongoing support to promote recovery, however, no review exists that is specific to telerehabilitation for lower extremity recovery. This paper describes the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of lower extremity-focused telerehabilitation interventions on clinical outcomes poststroke.

Methods and analysis A systematic review of relevant electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PEDro, PubMed and Cochrane Library) between inception and February 2022 will be undertaken to identify eligible interventional studies published in English that compared telerehabilitation focusing on lower extremity recovery to another intervention or usual care for individuals living in the community with stroke. Clinical outcomes examined will include those related to physical function and impairment, activities and participation that are typically assessed in clinical practice and research. Two reviewers will independently screen results, identify studies to be included for review, extract data and assess risk of bias. Meta-analyses will be performed if sufficient data exist. Sensitivity analyses will be performed by removing studies with low methodological quality, and subgroup analyses will be performed if data allow by stratifying papers based on salient demographic or stroke factors and comparing results. The reporting of the review will follow the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The quality of evidence regarding various outcomes for telerehabilitation for lower extremity recovery poststroke will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval or informed consent is needed for this systematic review. The findings of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021246886.

  • stroke
  • rehabilitation medicine
  • telemedicine
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055527

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This is the first review of the literature examining telerehabilitation interventions specific for lower extremity recovery poststroke, and the results will identify rehabilitation techniques and strategies that may be delivered using technology specific to improving lower extremity function.

    • The overall effects of telerehabilitation will be estimated by meta-analysing outcomes data and the quality of the body of literature will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

    • Grey literature, including theses and protocols of ongoing studies, will not be included which may decrease the comprehensiveness of this review.

    • All studies included will be assessed for study quality, including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and single-group pre–post studies.

    • This systematic review protocol will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

    Introduction

    Stroke is a leading cause of disease burden and death worldwide1 with over 10 million new strokes and 6.5 million stroke deaths each year.2 As the population ages, the prevalence of stroke is anticipated to increase 20% over the next 10 years.3 The most common and widely recognised deficit caused by stroke is motor impairment resulting in a loss or limitation of functional mobility, that can be seen in up to 80% of individuals with stroke.4 Lower extremity motor impairment, including haemiparesis, has been shown to lead to activity limitations, such as mobility,5 and participation restrictions,6 such as engaging in life roles (eg, relationships, community involvement). Additionally, there is a high risk of falls among stroke survivors with such impairment. Specifically, the occurrence of falls while walking can be as high as 73% among those who recover some ability to walk poststroke, with most falls occurring within the first few months of returning home from rehabilitation.7–9 Thus, regaining lower extremity function and walking ability is a priority for most stroke survivors,10 as optimal recovery may be associated with better long-term health and well-being outcomes.5

    Despite evidence supporting the importance of continued rehabilitation for lower extremity recovery, stroke survivors face substantial barriers, such as limited finances, travel distance (distance between home and rehabilitation centre) and transportation issues (eg, unable to resume driving, lack of transit options),11–13 in attending ongoing rehabilitation after hospital discharge. Moreover, due to decreasing length of stays for inpatient stroke rehabilitation,14–16 alternative methods for ongoing, accessible and cost-effective rehabilitation programmes that extend opportunities for lower extremity recovery beyond hospital settings are becoming increasingly important.

    Telerehabilitation, defined as the delivery of rehabilitation services using information and communication technologies,17 is a possible solution to mitigate issues surrounding accessibility of rehabilitation services and provide additional support during the transition back to the community. Telerehabilitation is also more cost-efficient when compared with traditional inpatient or person-to-person rehabilitation.18 The rapid growth in internet use and personal mobile devices has opened an array of possibilities for stroke survivors to remotely access specialised rehabilitation from their homes and communities (ie, telerehabilitation). Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research investigating telerehabilitation for the delivery of interventions for lower extremity recovery. Typically, programmes for lower-extremity recovery that focus on mobility and balance have been delivered in-person to manage safety issues and risks of falls. Thus, while telerehabilitation interventions have been used effectively for check-in sessions, education and counselling after stroke,19 20 there is minimal evidence on the use of telerehabilitation for lower extremity recovery poststroke. Furthermore, while telerehabilitation reviews exist,20–23 none have a specific focus on lower extremity recovery poststroke, largely because, up until recently, there has not been enough literature on the topic area. In fact, findings from various telerehabilitation investigations are just now beginning to emerge on lower-extremity recovery outcomes.24–26

    In this paper, we report on the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis that will:

    1. Describe telerehabilitation interventions for lower extremity recovery following stroke; and

    2. Quantitatively assess the effect of telerehabilitation programmes on clinical outcomes in the areas of physical function and impairment, activities and participation.

    Methods and analyses

    Study design and registration

    The systematic review will be conducted and reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA),27 as shown in online supplemental figure 1 of appendix A. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, the protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (Registration ID: CRD42021246886).

    Eligibility criteria

    Studies for review will be selected using the following eligibility criteria, categorised by study design, participants, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

    Study design

    This review aims to both describe and quantitatively assess the effects of telerehabilitation interventions poststroke, therefore, we will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as the primary study design, including cluster RCTs. However, non-RCT interventional studies, such as non-RCTs, will also be included for a comprehensive overview of all telerehabilitation interventions focusing on lower extremity recovery. For mixed-method studies, only the quantitative data will be used in the review for analysis. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals and in English will be included in this study. Observational or descriptive study designs, including cohort studies, case series, case reports and cross-sectional studies will be excluded. Study protocols, reviews and abstract-only records will also be excluded.

    Participants

    The review will include research on community-living individuals with stroke, ≥19 years of age. Studies may include patients with all levels of stroke severity, which may be defined using validated and routinely used stroke-specific health measures such as the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale28 or Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).29 30 If studies report on mixed samples, we will only include the study for review if results on the stroke sample are provided, or if the sample is comprised of at least 50% stroke survivors.

    Types of interventions

    The review will include studies that involve the use of telerehabilitation to promote recovery of the lower extremity poststroke. For the purposes of this review, telerehabilitation will be defined as the remote delivery of rehabilitation services via information and communication technologies (telecommunication)17 which includes, but are not limited to, the telephone, internet, video-conferencing, mobile devices and monitoring via sensors or wearable devices. The interventions may be delivered by rehabilitation staff (eg, physiotherapists, occupational therapists) or by people who have received training by rehabilitation staff, such as paid or unpaid carers of individuals with stroke. Interventions that use a combination of telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation will be included, provided that at least 50% of the intervention (eg, number of sessions) is delivered via telerehabilitation. The review will include studies that are completed during any phase of the poststroke recovery process in the community and in any physical or geographical location. We will exclude interventions that only have one session, or those with a primary focus on stroke sequelae other than lower extremity impairment (eg, upper extremity, cognition, communication, swallowing).

    Comparisons or control

    The review will include studies that have a comparator, which can be any of the following: another type of telerehabilitation, usual care or no intervention. Usual care can be defined as the rehabilitation that a patient who had stroke would normally receive as part of undergoing stroke rehabilitation.

    Outcome measures

    The review will include studies that focus on the outcomes of physical function and impairment, activities and participation that are associated with lower extremity recovery and typically measured pre–post rehabilitation intervention. Assessments that may be used, but not limited to, include the Timed Up and Go, 6-minute Walk Test, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Berg Balance Scale, Stroke Impact Scale, Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, Reintegration to Normal Living Index and gait speed.

    Information sources

    We will search EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PEDro, PubMed and Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Review Group Registers and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases systematically and comprehensively from their inception to February 2022. The reference list of all papers included for review will also be examined for additional studies of interest. PROSPERO will also be searched for ongoing or recently completed systematic reviews.

    Search strategy

    The search strategy for MEDLINE (online supplemental table 1 of appendix B) has been developed in collaboration with a university librarian and will be adapted for use in other databases. Terms include stroke, rehabilitation, telerehabilitation and lower extremity. Search terms were established using Medical Subject Headings and/or keywords.

    Data management and selection process

    We will use a multistage process for study selection.31 32 All retrieved studies will be imported into Covidence33 and duplicate studies will be removed through the programme. First, two researchers will independently screen all titles that generally appear to meet the review’s inclusion/exclusion criteria. Then, the same researchers will independently review all abstracts of each paper and identify papers for full-text review. Third, the researchers will review the full text of papers to finalise the study selection. Discrepancies at each stage of study selection will be resolved via group discussion or consulting with a third investigator. We will document all removed studies with specific reasons regarding their exclusion.

    Data extraction

    Data from all eligible papers identified through the study selection process will be extracted by the two review authors who will independently perform data extraction using a study-specific data extraction form. The form focuses on general study characteristics, study methods, participant characteristics, intervention description, outcomes and results. The form will be piloted independently by the research team. The lead author will train a research assistant on data extraction. Both the lead author and the research assistant will then extract three studies independently and discuss any differences to ensure consistency with data extraction for the remaining studies. The corresponding authors of each study included for review will be contacted by email to obtain missing data or further information, if necessary.

    Risk of bias

    Study quality and risk of bias for the included studies will be performed independently by two review authors. We will assess study quality of the randomised controlled trials using both the 11-item Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale (PEDro)34 and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool (CROB).35 Research indicates that the agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.285) between the summary scores of the two tools provide complimentary, yet distinct information.36 The PEDro scale is used to assess methodological quality of trials using an 11-item checklist. The first item assesses external validity, and the remaining 10 items assess internal validity to calculate the final score which ranges from 0 to 10, with a higher score indicating better methodological quality.37 Studies will be classified as poor (1–3 points), fair (4–5 points), good (6–8 points) and excellent (9–10 points).38 The CROB is used to assess and report risk of bias for seven items across five domains: randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome and selection of the reported results. Each domain item is rated as ‘high risk’, ‘some concerns’ or ‘low risk’ of bias and can be summarised with an overall risk-of-bias judgement, which typically corresponds to the worst risk of bias in any domains.39 Two review researchers will independently assess each studies’ methodological quality using the PEDro scale and rate each domain of the CROB. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion and/or by a third researcher. For non-RCTs, study quality will be assessed using the Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool40 and single-group pre–post studies will be assessed using the NIH Study Quality Assessment.41

    Reporting bias will also be examined using a Funnel plot and an Egger regression test.42 A funnel plot is a scatter plot of estimated treatment effects from individual studies (x-axis) against a measure of sample size (y-axis). If there is little or no bias, the results from smaller sample size studies would scatter widely at the bottom of the graph with the spread narrowing among larger studies. Publication bias may show as asymmetrical funnel plots and can be used as a mean to examine small study effects.43 The Egger regression test is an alternative way of quantifying publication bias. The test regresses the standardised effect sizes on their precision and in the absence of publication bias, the regression intercept would be 0.44

    Descriptive summary

    All interventional studies included for review will be described with the following: study design, participants, intervention, comparator (eg, another telerehabilitation intervention, no care, usual care), interveners (eg, therapist, caregiver) and outcomes (where reported). This review will assess whether interventions were sufficiently reported according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, a 12-item checklist originally created to improve the completeness of intervention reporting, of the included studies.45 The lead author and a research assistant will independently complete the TIDieR checklist for three included studies, compare responses and discuss and clarify any discrepancies to ensure consistency. The analysis will be carried out on the body of literature by summarising key characteristics of the studies in the areas of study design, sample, intervention and control groups and outcomes.

    Meta-analysis

    Between- group meta-analyses will be performed on all outcomes that have pre–post or change data from at least two RCTs that demonstrate sufficient homogeneity across studies in terms of outcomes. Authors will be contacted if the change data of the outcomes relevant to the review are not reported. The results for the individual outcomes will be pooled quantitatively using either fixed or random effects meta-analysis models. RevMan V.5.446 will be used for meta-analyses. Continuous values will be expressed as a mean difference if studies all report the outcome using the same scale, or the standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales are used, between baseline and postintervention along with 95% CIs. The SMD is the difference in mean outcome between groups divided by the SD of outcome among the participants at baseline.47 As there are numerous measures used to measure similar lower extremity outcomes, it is important to assess the summary outcome by standardising the results to a uniform scale before they can be combined. The measures being combined will conceptually be assessing the same constructs (eg, self-efficacy, participation). Dichotomous values will be expressed as risk ratios and 95% CI.47

    Heterogeneity

    Heterogeneity refers to the variability in the intervention effects being evaluated in the different studies. Clinical heterogeneity can be defined as differences in participant characteristics, types of timing of outcome measurements and intervention characteristics48 and will be determined subjectively by the reviewers.

    I2 statistic will be used to determine statistical heterogeneity across the included studies. Fixed-effect models will be used if the I2 is less than 50% (heterogeneity is not important or is moderate).47 Random effect models will be used in all other cases. We will control for heterogeneity in random effect models using the DerSimonian and Laird method available in RevMan V.5.446 to weigh studies based on the extent of their heterogeneity.30

    Sensitivity analysis

    To determine how robust the findings are from the main analyses, we will perform sensitivity analyses by excluding studies of low quality as determined by a PEDro score of 3 or less49 and/or studies with a ‘high’ risk of bias as determined by the CROB.

    Subgroup analysis

    Several different sociodemographic factors have been shown to moderate stroke outcomes. For example, female sex has been found to be mildly unfavourable in recovery,50 therefore a subgroup analysis will be performed for each outcome by sex if the data allow (critical number of studies (n=2) report based on sex). In addition, other factors such as age,51–59 severity of stroke55 59 60 and number of comorbidities61–63 have shown mixed evidence in influencing poststroke recovery, therefore a subgroup analysis will be carried out for each of the factors if data allow. The stroke severity will be dichotomised by severe (eg, mRS 3–5) and mild (eg, mRS 0–2).64 65 Finally, if data allow, we will perform subgroup analyses to examine differences in outcomes by the different types of interveners (eg, therapists, family members), and the technology used for the delivery of telerehabilitation (eg, mobile device, virtual reality).

    Quality of the evidence

    Assessment of the strength of the evidence for each outcome will be performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)66 67 approach. The GRADE domains include risk of bias,68 imprecision,69 inconsistency,70 indirectness71 and publication bias72 for rating down and could be rated up73 for large magnitude of effect, dose–response gradient and the presence of any residual confounding effects that would decrease the magnitude of effect.

    Patient and public involvement

    No patients were involved in the writing of this systematic review protocol. However, the results of this review will be disseminated to patients with stroke who have lower extremity impairments.

    Discussion

    This study will systematically review the research evidence of telerehabilitation for lower extremity recovery poststroke and quantify the effects on physical function and impairment, activity and participation outcomes.

    Issues with lower extremity recovery poststroke negatively impacts a patient’s quality of life, activities of daily living and social participation.4 74 75 Our review and assessment of the existing literature on telerehabilitation interventions for lower extremity recovery will help shape future development in stroke telerehabilitation specifically for lower extremity recovery. Importantly, our results will inform future research as well as clinical practice; it will be used to identify knowledge gaps, factors influencing treatment efficacy and inform experimental design of new telerehabilitation studies.

    Ethics and dissemination

    No ethical approval or informed consent is needed for this systematic review. The findings of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The findings will also be distributed to stroke recovery groups via infographics and lay summaries.

    Protocol amendments

    Any amendments will be documented with a thorough description of the change(s), date changed and the rationale.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. GBD 2016 Stroke Collaborators
      . Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Neurol 2019;18:439–58.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/30871944
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Feigin VL,
      2. Norrving B,
      3. Mensah GA
      . Global burden of stroke. Circ Res 2017;120:439–48.doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308413pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/28154096
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Ovbiagele B,
      2. Goldstein LB,
      3. Higashida RT, et al
      . Forecasting the future of stroke in the United States: a policy statement from the American heart association and American stroke association. Stroke 2013;44:2361–75.doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e31829734f2pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/23697546
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Langhorne P,
      2. Coupar F,
      3. Pollock A
      . Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009;8:741–54.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/19608100
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Desrosiers J,
      2. Malouin F,
      3. Bourbonnais D, et al
      . Arm and leg impairments and disabilities after stroke rehabilitation: relation to handicap. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:666–73.doi:10.1191/0269215503cr662oapmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/12971712
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Faria-Fortini I,
      2. Basílio ML,
      3. Polese JC, et al
      . Strength deficits of the paretic lower extremity muscles were the impairment variables that best explained restrictions in participation after stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2017;39:2158–63.doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1219397pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/27599131
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Forster A,
      2. Young J
      . Incidence and consequences of falls due to stroke: a systematic inquiry. BMJ 1995;311:83–6.doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6997.83pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/7613406
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Mackintosh SF,
      2. Hill KD,
      3. Dodd KJ, et al
      . Balance score and a history of falls in hospital predict recurrent falls in the 6 months following stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1583–9.doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.09.004pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/17141637
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Kerse N,
      2. Parag V,
      3. Feigin VL, et al
      . Falls after stroke: results from the Auckland regional community stroke (ARCOS) study, 2002 to 2003. Stroke 2008;39:1890–3.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.509885pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/18483413
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Bohannon RW,
      2. Horton MG,
      3. Wikholm JB
      . Importance of four variables of walking to patients with stroke. Int J Rehabil Res 1991;14:246–50.doi:10.1097/00004356-199109000-00010pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/1938039
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Marzolini S,
      2. Balitsky A,
      3. Jagroop D, et al
      . Factors affecting attendance at an adapted cardiac rehabilitation exercise program for individuals with mobility deficits poststroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016;25:87–94.doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.08.039pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/26429116
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Marzolini S,
      2. Fong K,
      3. Jagroop D, et al
      . Eligibility, enrollment, and completion of Exercise-Based cardiac rehabilitation following stroke rehabilitation: what are the barriers? Phys Ther 2019;100:44–56.doi:10.1093/ptj/pzz149
      OpenUrl
    13. ↵
      1. Sarfo FS,
      2. Adamu S,
      3. Awuah D, et al
      . Potential role of tele-rehabilitation to address barriers to implementation of physical therapy among West African stroke survivors: a cross-sectional survey. J Neurol Sci 2017;381:203–8.doi:10.1016/j.jns.2017.08.3265pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/28991682
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. García-Rudolph A,
      2. Cegarra B,
      3. Opisso E, et al
      . Predicting length of stay in patients admitted to stroke rehabilitation with severe and moderate levels of functional impairments. Medicine 2020;99:e22423.doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000022423pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/33120737
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Camicia M,
      2. Wang H,
      3. DiVita M, et al
      . Length of stay at inpatient rehabilitation facility and stroke patient outcomes. Rehabil Nurs 2016;41:78–90.doi:10.1002/rnj.218pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/26009865
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Grant C,
      2. Goldsmith CH,
      3. Anton HA
      . Inpatient stroke rehabilitation lengths of stay in Canada derived from the National rehabilitation reporting system, 2008 and 2009. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014;95:74–8.doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.014pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/24001444
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Brennan DM,
      2. Mawson S,
      3. Brownsell S
      . Telerehabilitation: enabling the remote delivery of healthcare, rehabilitation, and self management. Stud Health Technol Inform 2009;145:231–48.pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/19592797
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Peretti A,
      2. Amenta F,
      3. Tayebati SK, et al
      . Telerehabilitation: review of the state-of-the-art and areas of application. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2017;4:e7.doi:10.2196/rehab.7511pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/28733271
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Blacquiere D,
      2. Lindsay MP,
      3. Foley N, et al
      . Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: TeleStroke best practice guidelines update 2017. Int J Stroke 2017;12:886–95.doi:10.1177/1747493017706239pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/28441928
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Laver KE,
      2. Adey-Wakeling Z,
      3. Crotty M, et al
      . Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;1:CD010255.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/32002991
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Johansson T,
      2. Wild C
      . Telerehabilitation in stroke care--a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2011;17:1–6.doi:10.1258/jtt.2010.100105pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/21097560
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Sarfo FS,
      2. Ulasavets U,
      3. Opare-Sem OK, et al
      . Tele-Rehabilitation after stroke: an updated systematic review of the literature. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018;27:2306–18.doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.05.013pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/29880211
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Appleby E,
      2. Gill ST,
      3. Hayes LK, et al
      . Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in the management of adults with stroke: a systematic review. PLoS One 2019;14:e0225150.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225150pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31714924
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Chen J,
      2. Jin W,
      3. Dong WS, et al
      . Effects of home-based Telesupervising rehabilitation on physical function for stroke survivors with hemiplegia: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2017;96:152–60.doi:10.1097/PHM.0000000000000559pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/27386808
      OpenUrlPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Deng H,
      2. Durfee WK,
      3. Nuckley DJ, et al
      . Complex versus simple ankle movement training in stroke using telerehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2012;92:197–209.doi:10.2522/ptj.20110018
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Krpič A,
      2. Savanović A,
      3. Cikajlo I
      . Telerehabilitation: remote multimedia-supported assistance and mobile monitoring of balance training outcomes can facilitate the clinical staff's effort. Int J Rehabil Res 2013;36:162–71.doi:10.1097/MRR.0b013e32835dd63bpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/23337324
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Liberati A,
      3. Tetzlaff J, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/19622551
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Brott T,
      2. Adams HP,
      3. Olinger CP, et al
      . Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989;20:864–70.doi:10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/2749846
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      United Kingdom transient ischaemic attack (UK-TIA) aspirin trial: interim results. UK-TIA Study Group. Br Med J 1988;296:316–20.doi:10.1136/bmj.296.6618.316pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/2894232
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. van Swieten JC,
      2. Koudstaal PJ,
      3. Visser MC, et al
      . Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–7.doi:10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/3363593
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. ↵
      1. McDonagh M,
      2. Peterson K,
      3. Raina P, et al
      . Avoiding bias in selecting studies. In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet], 2013.
    32. ↵
      1. Edwards P,
      2. Clarke M,
      3. DiGuiseppi C, et al
      . Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 2002;21:1635–40.doi:10.1002/sim.1190pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/12111924
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      Covidence systematic review software Melbourne, Australia: veritas health innovation. Available: www.covidence.org.
    34. ↵
      1. Maher CG,
      2. Sherrington C,
      3. Herbert RD, et al
      . Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2003;83:713–21.doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.713pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/12882612
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. Higgins J,
      2. Altman DG
      . Assessing risk of bias in included studies, 2008.
    36. ↵
      1. Moseley AM,
      2. Rahman P,
      3. Wells GA, et al
      . Agreement between the Cochrane risk of bias tool and physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) scale: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. PLoS One 2019;14:e0222770.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222770pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31536575
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Moseley AM,
      2. Elkins MR,
      3. Van der Wees PJ, et al
      . Using research to guide practice: the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro). Braz J Phys Ther 2020;24:384–91.doi:10.1016/j.bjpt.2019.11.002pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31813695
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Gonzalez GZ,
      2. Moseley AM,
      3. Maher CG, et al
      . Methodologic quality and statistical reporting of physical therapy randomized controlled trials relevant to musculoskeletal conditions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018;99:129–36.doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.485pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/28962828
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Sterne JAC,
      2. Savović J,
      3. Page MJ, et al
      . Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31462531
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      1. Institute JB
      . Critical appraisal tools, 2020. Available: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
    41. ↵
      1. National Heart L, and Blood Institute
      . Study quality assessment tools, 2021. Available: https://www-nhlbi-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
    42. ↵
      1. Egger M,
      2. Davey Smith G,
      3. Schneider M, et al
      . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/9310563
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Sterne JAC,
      2. Harbord RM
      . Funnel plots in meta-analysis. Stata J 2004;4:127–41.doi:10.1177/1536867X0400400204
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    44. ↵
      1. Lin L,
      2. Chu H
      . Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2018;74:785–94.doi:10.1111/biom.12817pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/29141096
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Hoffmann TC,
      2. Glasziou PP,
      3. Boutron I, et al
      . Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687.doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/24609605
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    46. ↵
      1. The Cochrane Collaboration
      . Review manager (RevMan). 5.4 edn, 2020.
    47. ↵
      Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2020. Available: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
    48. ↵
      1. Chess LE,
      2. Gagnier JJ
      . Applicable or non-applicable: investigations of clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:19.doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0121-7pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/26883215
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Foley NC,
      2. Teasell RW,
      3. Bhogal SK, et al
      . Stroke rehabilitation evidence-based review: methodology. Top Stroke Rehabil 2003;10:1–7.doi:10.1310/Y6TG-1KQ9-LEDQ-64L8pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/12970828
      OpenUrlPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Paolucci S,
      2. Bragoni M,
      3. Coiro P, et al
      . Is sex a prognostic factor in stroke rehabilitation? A matched comparison. Stroke 2006;37:2989–94.doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000248456.41647.3dpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/17082475
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    51. ↵
      1. Nakayama H,
      2. Jørgensen HS,
      3. Raaschou HO, et al
      . The influence of age on stroke outcome. The Copenhagen stroke study. Stroke 1994;25:808–13.doi:10.1161/01.STR.25.4.808pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/8160225
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    52. ↵
      1. Jongbloed L
      . Prediction of function after stroke: a critical review. Stroke 1986;17:765–76.doi:10.1161/01.STR.17.4.765pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/3526649
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    53. ↵
      1. Jørgensen HS,
      2. Reith J,
      3. Nakayama H, et al
      . What determines good recovery in patients with the most severe strokes? the Copenhagen stroke study. Stroke 1999;30:2008–12.doi:10.1161/01.str.30.10.2008pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/10512899
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    54. ↵
      1. Kelly-Hayes M,
      2. Beiser A,
      3. Kase CS, et al
      . The influence of gender and age on disability following ischemic stroke: the Framingham study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2003;12:119–26.doi:10.1016/S1052-3057(03)00042-9pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/17903915
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. D'Amore C,
      2. Paciaroni M,
      3. Silvestrelli G, et al
      . Severity of acute intracerebral haemorrhage, elderly age and atrial fibrillation: independent predictors of poor outcome at three months. Eur J Intern Med 2013;24:310–3.doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2012.12.007pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/23291004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Bagg S,
      2. Pombo AP,
      3. Hopman W
      . Effect of age on functional outcomes after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2002;33:179–85.doi:10.1161/hs0102.101224pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/11779908
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    57. ↵
      1. Luk JKH,
      2. Cheung RTF,
      3. Ho SL, et al
      . Does age predict outcome in stroke rehabilitation? A study of 878 Chinese subjects. Cerebrovasc Dis 2006;21:229–34.doi:10.1159/000091219pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/16446535
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Umeano O,
      2. Phillips-Bute B,
      3. Hailey CE, et al
      . Gender and age interact to affect early outcome after intracerebral hemorrhage. PLoS One 2013;8:e81664.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081664pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/24312335
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Weimar C,
      2. König IR,
      3. Kraywinkel K, et al
      . Age and National Institutes of health stroke scale score within 6 hours after onset are accurate predictors of outcome after cerebral ischemia: development and external validation of prognostic models. Stroke 2004;35:158–62.doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000106761.94985.8Bpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/14684776
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    60. ↵
      1. Kwah LK,
      2. Harvey LA,
      3. Diong J, et al
      . Models containing age and NIHSS predict recovery of ambulation and upper limb function six months after stroke: an observational study. J Physiother 2013;59:189–97.doi:10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70183-8pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/23896334
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. ↵
      1. Simić-Panić D,
      2. Bošković K,
      3. Milićević M, et al
      . The impact of comorbidity on rehabilitation outcome after ischemic stroke. Acta Clin Croat 2018;57:5–15.doi:10.20471/acc.2018.57.01.01pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/30256006
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. Desilles J-P,
      2. Meseguer E,
      3. Labreuche J, et al
      . Diabetes mellitus, admission glucose, and outcomes after stroke thrombolysis: a registry and systematic review. Stroke 2013;44:1915–23.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000813pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/23704108
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    63. ↵
      1. Bushnell CD,
      2. Lee J,
      3. Duncan PW, et al
      . Impact of comorbidities on ischemic stroke outcomes in women. Stroke 2008;39:2138–40.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.509281pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/18451349
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    64. ↵
      1. Powers WJ,
      2. Derdeyn CP,
      3. Biller J, et al
      . 2015 American heart Association/American stroke association focused update of the 2013 guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke regarding endovascular treatment. Stroke 2015;46:3020–35.doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000074
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    65. ↵
      1. Savitz SI,
      2. Lew R,
      3. Bluhmki E, et al
      . Shift analysis versus dichotomization of the modified Rankin scale outcome scores in the NINDS and ECASS-II trials. Stroke 2007;38:3205–12.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.489351pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/17975102
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    66. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Vist GE, et al
      . Grade: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–6.doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ADpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/18436948
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    67. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R, et al
      . What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008;336:995–8.doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BEpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/18456631
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    68. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Vist G, et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407–15.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/21247734
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R, et al
      . GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1283–93.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/21839614
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R, et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1294–302.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/21803546
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Kunz R, et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1303–10.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/21802903
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Montori V, et al
      . GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1277–82.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/21802904
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Guyatt GH,
      2. Oxman AD,
      3. Sultan S, et al
      . Grade guidelines: 9. rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1311–6.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/21802902
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Silva SM,
      2. Corrêa JCF,
      3. Pereira GS, et al
      . Social participation following a stroke: an assessment in accordance with the International classification of functioning, disability and health. Disabil Rehabil 2019;41:879–86.doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1413428pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/29233002
      OpenUrlPubMed
    75. ↵
      1. Patel AT,
      2. Duncan PW,
      3. Lai SM, et al
      . The relation between impairments and functional outcomes poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:1357–63.doi:10.1053/apmr.2000.9397pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/11030501
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors BS is the guarantor of the review. SP, AT, CP and BS were involved in the design of the protocol for the systematic review. SP conceptualised and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding This work was supported by a subgrant from the Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery (CPSR) and Brain Canada. Other funding includes Canadian Institutes for Health Research Canada Graduate Scholarship to Park; Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Awards to Pollock and Sakakibara; and Heart and Stroke Foundation - Ontario Clinician-Scientist (Phase II) to Tang (P-19-TA-1192).

    • Disclaimer Funders have no input on the design of the protocol and will have no input on the analysis or interpretation of the results of the systematic review, or the publication of the systematic review.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.