Skip to main content

Table 1 Participant and study characteristics

From: The effect of physical activity on health outcomes in people with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis

Reference

Country

Setting

Sample Size

Female Sex (n=)/%)

Age (years)

Mean ± SD

Injury severity (n=) Moderate/

Severe)

Time post-Injury

Mean ± SD (months)+

PEDro Quality Assessment for RCTs

(total)

Control Group comparison

Bateman et al. 2001 [34]

UK

Inpatient Rehab

I: 24

C: 23

I: 6 (25%)

C: 3 (13%)

I: 35 ± 14

C: 36 ± 13

I: 0/14

C: 0/12

I: 5.1 ± 2.9a

C: 5.0 ± 2.2

7

Non-PA intervention (relaxation)

Bellon et al. 2015 [35] & Kolakowsky-Hayner et al. 2017 [36]b

USA

Home-based

I: 29

C: 40

28 (41%)

44 ± 16

10/35

100.5 ± 119.9

6c

Non-PA intervention (nutrition coaching)

Blake et al. 2009 [37]

UK

Community-based

I: 10

C: 10

I: 1 (10%)

C: 4 (40%)

I: 44 ± 10

C: 46 ± 11

I: 4/3

C: 4/2

I: 196.8 ± 108.0 C: 178.8 ± 163.2

6

Non-PA intervention (social & leisure activities)

Brenner et al. 2012 [38]

USA

Community-based

I: 37

 C: 37

I: 8 (22%)

C: 5 (14%)

I: 44 ± 16

C: 44 ± 15

I: NR

C: NR

I: 140.4 ± 165.6 C: 150.0 ± 165.6

4

No intervention

(wait-list)

Brown et al. 2005 [39]d

USA

Inpatient Rehab

I: 10

C: 9

I: 3 (30%)

C: 3 (33%)

I: 38 ± 12

C: 42 ± 8

I: 0/10

C: 0/9

I: 181.2 ± 78.0 C: 199.2 ± 199.2

5

PA intervention

(overground gait training)

Canning et al. 2003 [40]e

Australia

Inpatient Rehab

I: 13

C: 11

I: 2 (16%)

C: 4 (40%)

I: 25 ± 11

C: 26 ± 10

I: 0/13

C: 0/11

I: 2.5 ± 1.5

C: 2.8 ± 0.8

7

No additional intervention (usual rehab)

Curcio et al. 2020 [41]e

Italy

Inpatient Rehab

I: 11

C: 11

I: 6 (60%)

C: 5 (50%)

I: 37 ± 15

C: 43 ± 14

I: 0/11

C: 0/11

I: 5.8 ± 2.6

C: 4.8 ± 2.7

6

PA intervention (balance training)

Cuthbert et al. 2014 [42]

USA

Inpatient Rehab

I: 10

C: 10

I: 3 (30%)

C: 4 (40%)

I: 32 (23–56)f

C: 31 (19–64)

I: NR

C: NR

I: 1.8 (0.9–2.8)f

C: 3.1 (0.8-4.0)

6

PA intervention (balance training)

Driver et al. 2004 [43]

USA

Outpatient Rehab

I: 8

C: 8

I: 4 (50%)

C: 4 (50%)

I: 39 ± 5

C:38 ± 4

I: 0/8

C: 0/8

I: 40.8 ± 17.1

C: 36.6 ± 14.1

3

Non-PA intervention (vocational rehab)

Driver et al. 2006 [44]

USA

Outpatient Rehab

I: 9

C: 9

I: 4 (44%)

C: 4 (44%)

I: 38 ± 4

C: 35 ± 4

I: 0/9

C: 0/9

I: 40.3 ± 14.7

C: 41.2 ± 14.2

4

Non-PA intervention (vocational rehab)

Driver et al. 2009 [45]

USA

Outpatient Rehab

I: 8

C: 8

I: 3 (38%)

C: 4 (50%)

I: 39 ± 2

C: 38 ± 2

I: 8/0

C: 8/0

I: 40.8 ± 14.7

C: 36.2 ± 14.2

4

Non-PA intervention (vocational rehab)

Esquenazi et al. 2013 [46]

USA

Outpatient Rehab

I: 8

C: 8

I: 5 (62%)

C: 4 (50%)

I: 37 ± 11

C: 42 ± 17

NR

I: 140.3 ± 71.6 C: 150.4 ± 111.6

4

PA intervention (Manual-Assisted Partial BWSTT)

Freivogel et al. 2009 [47]g

Germany

Inpatient Rehab

I: 8

C: 8

I: 3 (38%)

C: 2 (25%)

I: 22 ± 6

C: 26 ± 6

I: 0/6

C: 0/6

I: 16.0 ± 15.0 C: 56.0 ± 69.0

8

PA intervention (Partial BWSTT or overground walking)

Gemmell et al. 2006 [48]

New Zealand

Community-based

I: 9

C: 9

All: 9

All:

F, 40 ± 12

M, 51 ± 9

I: NR

C: NR

All: 104.4

5

No intervention

(wait-list)

Hassett et al. 2009 [49] & Hassett et al. 2011 [50]

Australia

Community-based

I: 32

C: 30

I: 5 (15%)

C: 4 (12%)

I: 35 ± 15

C: 33 ± 12

I: 0/32

C: 0/30

I: 2.6 (1.8-4.0) C: 2.3 (1.5–3.4)h

8

PA intervention

(home-based exercise)

Hassett et al. 2012 [51]

Australia

Inpatient & Outpatient Rehab

I: 20

C: 20

I: 6 (30%)

C: 7 (35%)

I: 39 ± 17

C: 29 ± 11

I: 0/20

C: 0/20

I: 3.7 (2.0-4.9) C: 3.1 (2.1–5.6)h

7

PA intervention

(Circuit class, no HR feedback)

Katz-Leurer et al. 2009 [52]i

Israel

Home-based

I: 10

C: 10

I: 3 (30%)

C: 3 (30%)

I: 8 ± 4

C: 9 ± 3

I: 0/5

C: 0/5

I: NR

C: NR

7

No intervention

Kleffelgaard et al. 2019 [53]j

Norway

Outpatient Rehab

I: 33

C: 32

I: 23 (70%)

C: 22 (71%)

I: 38 ± 12

C: 41 ± 14

I: NR

C: NR

I: 3.9 ± 2.2

C: 3.4 ± 1.9

8

No additional intervention (usual rehab)

McMillan et al. 2002 [54]k

UK

Community-based

I: 47

C: 48

I: 8 (21%)

C: 12 (25%)

I: 31 ± 13

C: 36 ± 13

I: NR

C: NR

I: NR

C: NR

6

No intervention

Särkämö et al. 2021 [55]b

Finland

Outpatient rehab

I: 6

C: 5

I: 3 (50%)

C: 1 (20%

I: 36 ± 6

C: 35 ± 14

I: 0/6

C: 0/5

I: 110.4 ± 30.0

C: 69.6 ± 37.2

7

No intervention (wait-list)

Straudi et al. 2017 [56]l

Italy

Inpatient & Outpatient Rehab

I: 11

C: 10

I: 2 (16%)

C: 2 (22%)

I: 30 ± 16

C: 37 ± 10

I: NR

C: NR

I: 24.0 ± 72.0

C: 96.0 ± 192.0

5

PA intervention (balance training)

Tefertiller et al. 2019 [57]

USA

Home-based

I: 31

C: 32

I: 8 (26%)

C: 16 (50%)

I: 48 ± 12

C: 50 ± 12

I: NR

C: NR

I: 99.6 ± 110.4

C: 102.0 ± 87.6

5

PA intervention (home-based balance training)

Wilson et al. 2006 [58]e

USA

Inpatient Rehab

I: 20

C: 20

I: 1 (5%)

C: 2 (11%)

I: 33 ± 14

C: 26 ± 9

I: NR

C: NR

I: 4.0 ± 3.5

C: 2.8 ± 1.8

7

No additional intervention (usual gait rehab)

  1. SD, standard deviation, PEDro Physiotherapy Evidence Database RCT Randomised Controlled Trial, UK United Kingdom, Rehab Rehabilitation, I Intervention, C Control, PA Physical Activity, USA United States of America, NR not reported, BWSTT Body-Weight Supported Treadmill Training, F Female, M Male, HR Heart Rate
  2. + Where time post-injury was reported in days, weeks or year/s, the mean and SD were converted to months
  3. a In Bateman et al. [34] for the time post-injury, n = 23. TBI-specific data from this study is taken from email correspondence with author LH from Cochrane review (Hassett et al., 2017) [59]
  4. b Study employed a cross-over RCT design. The demographic data reported here is from the first phase of the trial only
  5. c The PEDro score reported here is that of the Bellon et al. [35] article. The Kolakowsky-Hayner et al. [36] article has been scored as a 4 according to the PEDro database. We have chosen to report the higher of the two PEDro scores for this study
  6. d The number of moderate/severe TBI participants is not reported in the article [39], but was confirmed via personal correspondence with the lead author
  7. e Demographic data presented excludes participants lost to follow-up
  8. f Median and Range (min-max.)
  9. g In Freivogel et al. [47], of the n = 8 participants randomised to each of the experimental and control groups, 6 were diagnosed TBI, 1 was diagnosed stroke, and 1 was diagnosed spinal cord injury in each group. The demographic data provided is based on the total group (i.e., n = 8) for both the experimental and control groups
  10. h Median and interquartile range
  11. i In Katz-Leurer et al. [52], of the n = 10 participants randomised to each of the experimental and control groups, 5 were diagnosed TBI and 5 were diagnosed cerebral palsy in each group. The demographic data provided is based on the total group (i.e., n = 10 TBI  + cerebral palsy) for both the experimental and control group
  12. j In Kleffelgaard et al. [53], n = 32 participants were initially randomised to the control group. But one participant did not receive the allocated control due to not wishing to participate. The demographic data provided for the control group is based on n = 31. All demographic data is provided for mild-to-moderate severe TBI.
  13. k In McMillan et al. [54], n = 145 were initially randomised to three groups, an attentional training group and a physical exercise group, and a no intervention control group. In this review, only the physical exercise experimental group has been included for comparison with the no intervention control group. Nine participants from the physical exercise experimental group failed to complete the treatment. Therefore, the demographic data reported here for the experimental group is n = 38
  14. l In Straudi et al. [56], n = 11 participants were initially randomised to the experimental group, but one participant randomised to the control group mistakenly received the experimental intervention. Therefore, the demographic data for the experimental group is based on n = 12, and for the control group is n = 9