scholarly journals Mirror therapy for motor function of the upper extremity in patients with stroke: A meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
W Zeng ◽  
Y Guo ◽  
G Wu ◽  
X Liu ◽  
Q Fang
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mirror Therapy

Mirror therapy simultaneously combined with electrical stimulation for upper limb motor function recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921552095193
Author(s):  
Alberto Saavedra-García ◽  
Jose A Moral-Munoz ◽  
David Lucena-Anton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Mirror Therapy

Objective: To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness of simultaneous combination of mirror therapy and electrical stimulation in the recovery of upper limb motor function after stroke, compared with conventional therapy, mirror therapy or electrical stimulation isolated. Data sources: Articles published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central register of controlled trials and ScienceDirect up to July 2020. Review methods: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro tool. The RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used to obtain the meta-analysis, through the standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and to evaluate the risk of bias. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Eight articles were included in this systematic review, seven were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 314 participants were analyzed. The overall quality of the articles included in this review was good. There was no overall significant mean difference on upper limb motor function after stroke using the Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment by 1.56 (95% CI = –2.08, 5.20; P = 0.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and the Box and Block Test results by 1.39 (95% CI = –2.14, 4.92; P = 0.44; high-certainty evidence). There was overall significant difference in the Action Research Arm Test by 3.54 (95% CI = 0.18, 6.90; P = 0.04; high-certainty evidence). Conclusion: Direct scientific evidence about the effectiveness of the combined therapy of mirror therapy and electrical stimulation simultaneously for the improvement of the upper limb motor function after stroke is lacking. Further high-quality and well-designed research is needed.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of technological interventions to improve upper limb motor function in people with stroke in low- and middle-income countries: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meiling Milagros Carbajal-Galarza ◽  
Nathaly Olga Chinchihualpa-Paredes ◽  
Sergio Alejandro Abanto-Perez ◽  
María Lazo-Porras
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Technological Interventions ◽  
Low And Middle Income

ABSTRACTIntroductionStroke is one of the main causes of disability in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), frequently presenting with upper extremity paresis and causing major functional dependence. It requires high dose and intense rehabilitation which implies high economic costs, consequently limiting this therapy in LMIC. There are multiple technological interventions that facilitate rehabilitation either in intensity, adherence and motor evaluation; or enable access to rehabilitation such as robots, games or virtual reality, sensors, electronic devices and tele-rehabilitation. Their efficacy has been mainly evaluated in high-income countries, hence the importance of conducting a systematic review in LMIC settings.ObjectivesTo measure the efficacy of technological interventions vs. classical physical rehabilitation in the upper extremity motor function in people who had suffered a first or recurrent episode of stroke in LMIC.Methods and analysisThis protocol is consistent with the methodology recommended by the PRISMA-P and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. We propose to do a systematic review and meta-analysis. In order to do so, we will perform an electronic search in PubMed, Global Index Medicus and Physiotherapy Evidence Database. No date range parameters will be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese, with the primary outcome focusing on upper limb motor function, will be included. Two reviewers will screen all retrieved titles, abstracts and full texts, perform the evaluation of the risk of bias and extract all data independently. The risk of bias of the included RCT will be evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. A qualitative synthesis will be provided in text and tables, to summarize the main results of the selected publications.The heterogeneity between studies will be assessed through the I2 statistic. If there is sufficient homogeneity across outcomes, a meta-analysis will be considered. The outcomes to be evaluated will be motor functionality of the upper extremity, performance for activities of daily living and quality of life, through measurement scales.ConclusionsThis systematic review will provide evidence regarding the efficacy of multiple technological interventions to improve motor function of upper extremity in individuals with stroke in LMIC. Based on this analysis, we will be able to assess whether these interventions are also effective and feasible in the recovery of functionality after stroke in low- and middle-income countries, and thus offer recommendations in these areas.

Mirror therapy for improving lower limb motor function and mobility after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 ◽  
pp. 208-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Broderick ◽  
F. Horgan ◽  
C. Blake ◽  
M. Ehrensberger ◽  
D. Simpson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mirror Therapy

scholarly journals Effect of brain-computer interface training based on non-invasive electroencephalography using motor imagery on functional recovery after stroke - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Neurology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Kruse ◽  
Zorica Suica ◽  
Jan Taeymans ◽  
Corina Schuster-Amft
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Motor Imagery ◽  
Brain Function ◽  
Conventional Therapy ◽  
Brain Computer Interface ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Motor Recovery ◽  
Computer Interface ◽  
Function Recovery

Abstract Background Training with brain-computer interface (BCI) technology in the rehabilitation of patients after a stroke is rapidly developing. Numerous RCT investigated the effects of BCI training (BCIT) on recovery of motor and brain function in patients after stroke. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Cochrane library, and Embase in July 2018 and was repeated in March 2019. RCT or controlled clinical trials that included BCIT for improving motor and brain recovery in patients after a stroke were identified. Data were meta-analysed using the random-effects model. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence (95%CI) and 95% prediction interval (95%PI) were calculated. A meta-regression was performed to evaluate the effects of covariates on the pooled effect-size. Results In total, 14 studies, including 362 patients after ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (cortical, subcortical, 121 females; mean age 53.0+/− 5.8; mean time since stroke onset 15.7+/− 18.2 months) were included. Main motor recovery outcome measure used was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. Quantitative analysis showed that a BCI training compared to conventional therapy alone in patients after stroke was effective with an SMD of 0.39 (95%CI: 0.17 to 0.62; 95%PI of 0.13 to 0.66) for motor function recovery of the upper extremity. An SMD of 0.41 (95%CI: − 0.29 to 1.12) for motor function recovery of the lower extremity was found. BCI training enhanced brain function recovery with an SMD of 1.11 (95%CI: 0.64 to 1.59; 95%PI ranging from 0.33 to 1.89). Covariates such as training duration, impairment level of the upper extremity, and the combination of both did not show significant effects on the overall pooled estimate. Conclusion This meta-analysis showed evidence that BCI training added to conventional therapy may enhance motor functioning of the upper extremity and brain function recovery in patients after a stroke. We recommend a standardised evaluation of motor imagery ability of included patients and the assessment of brain function recovery should consider neuropsychological aspects (attention, concentration). Further influencing factors on motor recovery due to BCI technology might consider factors such as age, lesion type and location, quality of performance of motor imagery, or neuropsychological aspects. Trial Registration PROSPERO registration: CRD42018105832.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document