Stroke
Conditions
Keywords
Stroke, Randomized control trial, Mirror therapy, Bilateral arm training, Comparative efficacy research, Neurorehabilitation
Brief summary
The study purpose is to compare the efficacy of mirror therapy and bilateral arm training on movement strategies of the affected upper extremity and functional outcome in chronic stroke patients.
Detailed description
Study background: Approximately 80% of stroke survivors have an upper and/or lower limb impairment (Barker 1997), and impairment of the arm explains up to 50% of the variance in functional limitation after stroke. Brain imaging research using magnetoencephalography found that mirror therapy combined with bilateral arm training could potentially aid stroke rehabilitation by normalizing an asymmetrical pattern of movement-related beta desynchronization in primary motor cortex. However, different neural mechanisms may cause different effect of motor control recovery after the two different approaches, which have yet to be studied. Study purpose：To compare the efficacy of mirror therapy and bilateral arm training on movement strategies of the affected upper extremity and functional outcome in chronic stroke patients. Study method: This was a single-blind, randomized, comparative efficacy research. Sixty participants with chronic stroke will be recruited in the occupational therapy clinics at four hospitals and randomly assigned to the mirror therapy and bilateral arm training groups. The intervention will consist of 1.5 hrs/day, 5 days/wk for 4 wks, including 3 days of hospital-based therapy and 5 days of home practice. Primary outcomes were muscular properties (grip strength) and sensorimotor measurements. Secondary outcomes included measures of daily functions to gain insight about movement capabilities. The validity and reliability of all measurements have been proposed. Finally, the Mann-Whitney U test and the Fisher exact test will be used to compare the significant differences between the two approaches. The effect size of dependent variables will be reported also.
Interventions
OTHERMirror therapy
Mirror therapy group received training for 1.5 hours/day, 3 days/week, for 4 weeks and home programs for 30-40 min/day, 5 days/week.
Bilateral arm training group received training for 1.5 hours/day, 3 days/week, for 4 weeks and home programs for 30-40 min/day, 5 days/week.
Sponsors
China Medical University Hospital
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* more than 6 months after onset of an ischemic or hemorrhage stroke * no excessive spasticity on all joints of the affected arm
Exclusion criteria
* history of stroke or other neurologic, neuromuscular, or orthopedic disease * participation in other experimental rehabilitation or drug studies concurrent with this study
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The efficacy of mirror therapy versus bilateral arm training on sensorimotor functions | within four weeks (plus or minus 3 days) after intervention | Revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment and Fugl-Meyer Assessment will be used to measure sensorimotor functions. The statistical analysis will be performed to compare the significant differences for the efficacy of mirror therapy versus bilateral arm training. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The efficacy of mirror therapy versus bilateral arm training on motor performance | within four weeks (plus or minus 3 days) after intervention | The Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) will be used to measure arm and hand functions on real-life bilateral tasks. The statistical analysis will be performed to compare the significant differences for the efficacy of mirror therapy versus bilateral arm training on motor performance. |
| The efficacy of mirror therapy versus bilateral arm training on quality of life | within four weeks (plus or minus 3 days) after intervention | Stroke Impact Scale Version 3.0 (SIS) will be used to measure patient reported quality of life and multidimensional stroke recovery. The statistical analysis will be performed to compare the significant differences for the efficacy of mirror therapy versus bilateral arm training. |
Countries
Taiwan
Outcome results
None listed