Dataset Information

Effects of action observation therapy and mirror therapy after stroke on rehabilitation outcomes and neural mechanisms by MEG: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Loss of upper-extremity motor function is one of the most debilitating deficits following stroke. Two promising treatment approaches, action observation therapy (AOT) and mirror therapy (MT), aim to enhance motor learning and promote neural reorganization in patients through different afferent inputs and patterns of visual feedback. Both approaches involve different patterns of motor observation, imitation, and execution but share some similar neural bases of the mirror neuron system. AOT and MT used in stroke rehabilitation may confer differential benefits and neural activities that remain to be determined. This clinical trial aims to investigate and compare treatment effects and neural activity changes of AOT and MT with those of the control intervention in patients with subacute stroke.An estimated total of 90 patients with subacute stroke will be recruited for this study. All participants will be randomly assigned to receive AOT, MT, or control intervention for a 3-week training period (15 sessions). Outcome measurements will be taken at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at the 3-month follow-up. For the magnetoencephalography (MEG) study, we anticipate that we will recruit 12 to 15 patients per group. The primary outcome will be the Fugl-Meyer Assessment score. Secondary outcomes will include the modified Rankin Scale, the Box and Block Test, the ABILHAND questionnaire, the Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery, the Functional Independence Measure, activity monitors, the Stroke Impact Scale version 3.0, and MEG signals.This clinical trial will provide scientific evidence of treatment effects on motor, functional outcomes, and neural activity mechanisms after AOT and MT in patients with subacute stroke. Further application and use of AOT and MT may include telerehabilitation or home-based rehabilitation through web-based or video teaching.ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02871700 . Registered on 1 August 2016.

SUBMITTER: Shih TY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5628464 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of action observation therapy and mirror therapy after stroke on rehabilitation outcomes and neural mechanisms by MEG: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Shih Tsai-Yu TY Wu Ching-Yi CY Lin Keh-Chung KC Cheng Chia-Hsiung CH Hsieh Yu-Wei YW Chen Chia-Ling CL Lai Chih-Jou CJ Chen Chih-Chi CC

Trials 20171004 1

<h4>Background</h4>Loss of upper-extremity motor function is one of the most debilitating deficits following stroke. Two promising treatment approaches, action observation therapy (AOT) and mirror therapy (MT), aim to enhance motor learning and promote neural reorganization in patients through different afferent inputs and patterns of visual feedback. Both approaches involve different patterns of motor observation, imitation, and execution but share some similar neural bases of the mirror neuron ...[more]

PMID: 28978349

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAction observation (AO) is a physical rehabilitation approach that facilitates the occurrence of neural plasticity through the activation of the mirror-neural system, promoting motor recovery in people with stroke.ObjectivesTo assess whether AO enhances upper limb motor function in people with stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 18 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (18 May 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 May 2021), Embase (1974 to 18 May 2021), and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AO alone or associated with physical practice in adults after stroke. The primary outcome was upper limb (arm and hand) motor function. Secondary outcomes included dependence on activities of daily living (ADL), motor performance, cortical activation, quality of life, and adverse effects.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials according to the predefined inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 1, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The reviews authors contacted trial authors for clarification and missing information.Main resultsWe included 16 trials involving 574 individuals. Most trials provided AO followed by the practice of motor actions. Training varied between 1 day and 8 weeks of therapy, 10 to 90 minutes per session. The time of AO ranged from 1 minute to 10 minutes for each motor action, task or movement observed. The total number of motor actions ranged from 1 to 3. Control comparisons included sham observation, physical therapy, and functional activity practice.Primary outcomesAO improved arm function (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.61; 11 trials, 373 participants; low-certainty evidence); and improved hand function (mean difference (MD) 2.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.49; 5 trials, 178 participants; low-certainty evidence).Secondary outcomesAO did not improve ADL performance (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.08; 7 trials, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (MD 5.52, 95% CI -30.74 to 41.78; 2 trials, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool the other secondary outcomes (motor performance and cortical activation). Only two trials reported adverse events without significant adverse effects.Authors' conclusionsThe effects of AO are small for arm function compared to any control group; for hand function the effects are large, but not clinically significant. For both, the certainty of evidence is low. There is no evidence of benefit or detriment from AO on ADL and quality of life of people with stroke; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. As such, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited because it will likely change with future research.

Project description:BackgroundMotor (re)learning via technology-dependent therapy has the potential to complement traditional therapies available to older adults living with stroke after hospital discharge and increase therapy dose. To date, little is known about the feasibility of technology-dependent therapy in a home setting for this population.ObjectiveTo develop a technology-dependent therapy that provides mental and physical training for older adults with stroke and assess feasibility. Specifically we ask, "Can it work"?DesignSingle group repeated measures.Methods13 participants, aged 18 years and over, were recruited over a six-month period. All participants had mild upper limb impairment following a stoke and were no longer receiving intensive rehabilitation. All participants received 18 days of technology-dependent therapy in their own home. Information was gathered on recruitment and retention, usability, and suitability of outcome measures.Results11 participants completed the study. The recruitment rate (number recruited/number canvassed; 10.7%) suggests 1907 participants would need to be canvassed to recruit the necessary sample size (n = 204) for a definitive trial designed to provide 90% power at 5% level of significance to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 5.7 points on the Action Research Arm Test. The usability of the application was rated as exceptional on the System Usability Scale. Effectiveness cannot be determined from this study; however, there was a trend for improvement in measures of upper limb function and emotional well-being. Limitations. The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and lack of control group.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated proof of concept of a technology-dependent therapy for upper limb rehabilitation following stroke. The data suggest a definitive trial is feasible, additional strategies to improve recruitment should be considered. Outcome measures aligned with the residual motor function of participants are required.

Project description:More than 60% of stroke survivors experience residual deficits of the paretic upper limb/hand. Standard rehabilitation generates modest gains. Stimulation delivered to the surviving Primary Motor Cortex in the stroke-affected hemisphere has been considered a promising adjunct. However, recent trials challenge its advantage. We discuss our pilot clinical trial that aims to address factors implicated in divergent success of the approach. We assess safety, feasibility and efficacy of targeting an alternate locus during rehabilitation- the premotor cortex. In anticipating variance across patients, we measure neural markers differentiating response from non-response.In a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded pilot clinical study, patients with chronic stroke (n = 20) are assigned to receive transcranial direct current stimulation delivered to the premotor cortex or sham during rehabilitation of the paretic arm/hand. Patients receive the designated intervention for 30 min, twice a day for 3 days a week for 5 weeks. We assess hand function and patients' reports of use of paretic hand. A general linear mixed methods model will analyze changes from pre- to post-intervention. Responders and non-responders will be compared upon baseline level of function, and neural substrates, including function and integrity of output tracts, bi-hemispheric balance, and lesion profile. Incidence of adverse events will be compared using Fisher's Exact test, while rigor of blinding will be assessed with Chi-square analysis to ascertain feasibility.Variable success of cortical stimulation in rehabilitation can be related to gaps in theoretical basis and clinical investigation. Given that most patients with severe deficits have damage to the primary motor cortex or its output pathways, it would be futile to target stimulation to this site. We suggest targeting premotor cortex because it contributes substantially to descending output, a role that is amplified with greater damage to the motor cortex. With regards to clinical investigation, paired cortical stimulation in rehabilitation has been compared to rehabilitation alone in unblinded trials or to unconvincing sham conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation, a noninvasive technique of brain stimulation, which offers a more effective placebo and has a favorable safety-feasibility profile, may improve scientific rigor. Neural markers of response would help inform patient selection for future clinical trials so we can address limitations of recent negative studies.NCT01539096.

Dataset Information

Effects of action observation therapy and mirror therapy after stroke on rehabilitation outcomes and neural mechanisms by MEG: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Effects of action observation therapy and mirror therapy after stroke on rehabilitation outcomes and neural mechanisms by MEG: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets