No Recommendation
No evidence recommendation or consensus-based opinion statement
| Passive standing (v no intervention) on bone mineral density | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | People with SCI | Evidence recommendation No evidence recommendation Reason: No recommendation due to insufficient or inconclusive evidence. | No evidence recommendation or consensus-based opinion statement No recommendation can be made on passive standing to improve bone mineral density in people with SCI. |
||||
| I | Passive standing | ||||||
| C | No intervention | Consensus-based opinion statement No consensus statements Reason: No consensus could be reached |
|||||
| O | Bone mineral density | ||||||
| SUMMARY | 1 RCT | Mean difference (95% CI): Bone mineral density g/cm2 0.01 (-0.02 to 0.03) Favours passive standing |
|||||
| GRADE Very low certainty ⨁◯◯◯ | Risk of bias Serious | Inconsistency Serious | Imprecision No serious | Indirectness Serious | Publication bias Serious |
||
| PASSIVE STANDING ON BONE MINERAL DENSITY: GRADE Evidence to Decision | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROBLEM | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
| DESIRABLE EFFECTS | Trivial | Small | Moderate | Large | Don't know | |
| UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS | Large | Moderate | Small | Trivial | Don't know | |
| CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | No included studies | |
| HOW MUCH PEOPLE VALUE THE MAIN OUTCOME | Important uncertainty or variability | Possibly important uncertainty or variability | Probably no important uncertainty or variability | No important uncertainty or variability | ||
| BALANCE OF EFFECTS | Favours the Control | Probably favours the Control | Does not favour either the intervention (I) or the comparison (C) | Probably favours the I | Favours the I | Don't know |
| RESOURCES REQUIRED | Large costs | Moderate costs | Negligible costs and savings | Moderate savings | Large savings | Don't know |
| CERTAINTY OF EVIDENCE OF REQUIRED RESOURCES | Very low | Low | Moderate | High | No included studies | |
| COST EFFECTIVENESS | Favours the comparison | Probably favours the comparison | Does not favour either the intervention or the comparison | Probably favours the intervention | Favours the intervention | No included studies |
| EQUITY | Reduced | Probably reduced | Probably no impact | Probably increased | Increased | Don't know |
| ACCEPTABILITY | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
| FEASIBILITY | No | Probably no | Probably yes | Yes | Don't know | |
| PASSIVE STANDING ON BONE MINERAL DENSITY: Randomised Controlled Trial Details | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STUDY | COMPARISON | DOSAGE/DETAILS | PARTICIPANTS | N (Rx/C) | OUTCOME | ROB 2 PEDRo |
| BEN 2005 | Long duration stretch V No intervention | 30 minutes, 3 x per week for 12 weeks of standing on TT | People with SCI and LL paralysis | 20/20 | Bone mineral density g/cm2 | Some Concerns of Risk of Bias PEDro = 8/10 |
The Australian and NZ SCI Physiotherapy guideline committee was unable to make an evidence based recommendation or consensus based opinion statement on passive standing for bone mineral density in people with SCI.
-
Ben M, Harvey L, Denis S, et al. Does 12 weeks of regular standing prevent loss of ankle mobility and bone mineral density in people with recent spinal cord injuries? Australian journal of physiotherapy 2005;51:251.