Skip to content

Comparison of virtual reality plus conventional rehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation alone in patients with stroke

Effects of virtual reality plus conventional rehabilitation therapy versus conventional rehabilitation alone on the wrist and elbow spasticity and motor function beside active range of motion in shoulder abduction, wrist extension, and elbow extension in patients with stroke

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
IRCT
Registry ID
IRCT20200811048372N1
Enrollment
30
Registered
2020-10-16
Start date
2020-08-25
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2020-11-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

stroke. Stroke, not specified as haemorrhage or infarction

Interventions

Intervention 1: Interventional group: patients in this group are subjected to a 6 week long period of rehabilitation, three sessions a week, each session consisted of 45 minutes of conventional rehabi
passive movements and assistive movements are used in order to improve range of motion
and targeted movements and active movements are used in order to improve motor function. Intervention 2: Control group: patients in this group are subjected to a 6 week long period of rehabilitation,
and targeted movements and active movements are used in order to improve motor function.

Sponsors

Maryam Soheilifar
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
30 Years to 80 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients with age range from 30 to 80 years with ischemic stroke in past three to 12 months Patients admitted in a referral training tertiary healthcare center in 2020

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Severe neuro-psychological impairments interfering with recovery Impossibility to follow up the patients

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
1) The wrist spasticity at baseline and after six weeks by Modified Ashworth upper extremity score. Timepoint: one turn before intervention, and another 6 weeks after intervention. Method of measurement: Modified Ashworth upper extremity score.;2) The elbow spasticity at baseline and after six weeks by Modified Ashworth upper extremity score. Timepoint: one turn before intervention, and another 6 weeks after intervention. Method of measurement: Modified Ashworth upper extremity score.;3) Motor function at baseline and after six weeks by Fugle-Meyer upper extremity score. Timepoint: one turn before intervention, and another 6 weeks after intervention. Method of measurement: Fugle-Meyer upper extremity score.;4) Active range of motion in shoulder abduction calculated by single blinded assessor with goniometry at baseline and after six weeks. Timepoint: one turn before intervention, and another 6 weeks after intervention. Method of measurement: calculated by single blinded assessor with goniometry.;5) Active range of motion in wrist extension calculated by single blinded assessor with goniometry at baseline and after six weeks. Timepoint: one turn before intervention, and another 6 weeks after intervention. Method of measurement: calculated by single blinded assessor with goniometry.;6) Active range of motion in elbow extension calculated by single blinded assessor with goniometry at baseline and after six weeks. Timepoint: one turn before intervention, and another 6 weeks after intervention. Method of measurement: calculated by single blinded assessor with goniometry.

Countries

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Contacts

Public ContactMaryam Soheilifar

Maryam Soheilifar

msoheilifar1@yahoo.com+98 21 2613 0694

Outcome results

None listed

Source: IRCT (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026