Dataset Information

Effect of Specific Over Nonspecific VR-Based Rehabilitation on Poststroke Motor Recovery: A Systematic Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite the rise of virtual reality (VR)-based interventions in stroke rehabilitation over the past decade, no consensus has been reached on its efficacy. This ostensibly puzzling outcome might not be that surprising given that VR is intrinsically neutral to its use-that is, an intervention is effective because of its ability to mobilize recovery mechanisms, not its technology. As VR systems specifically built for rehabilitation might capitalize better on the advantages of technology to implement neuroscientifically grounded protocols, they might be more effective than those designed for recreational gaming. OBJECTIVE:We evaluate the efficacy of specific VR (SVR) and nonspecific VR (NSVR) systems for rehabilitating upper-limb function and activity after stroke. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials with adult stroke patients to analyze the effect of SVR or NSVR systems versus conventional therapy (CT). RESULTS:We identified 30 studies including 1473 patients. SVR showed a significant impact on body function (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.36; P = .0007) versus CT, whereas NSVR did not (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI = -0.14 to 0.47; P = .30). This result was replicated in activity measures. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that SVR systems are more beneficial than CT for upper-limb recovery, whereas NSVR systems are not. Additionally, we identified 6 principles of neurorehabilitation that are shared across SVR systems and are possibly responsible for their positive effect. These findings may disambiguate the contradictory results found in the current literature.

SUBMITTER: Maier M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6376608 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Specific Over Nonspecific VR-Based Rehabilitation on Poststroke Motor Recovery: A Systematic Meta-analysis.

Maier Martina M Rubio Ballester Belén B Duff Armin A Duarte Oller Esther E Verschure Paul F M J PFMJ

Neurorehabilitation and neural repair 20190130 2

<h4>Background</h4>Despite the rise of virtual reality (VR)-based interventions in stroke rehabilitation over the past decade, no consensus has been reached on its efficacy. This ostensibly puzzling outcome might not be that surprising given that VR is intrinsically neutral to its use-that is, an intervention is effective because of its ability to mobilize recovery mechanisms, not its technology. As VR systems specifically built for rehabilitation might capitalize better on the advantages of tec ...[more]

PMID: 30700224

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceData from animal models show that the administration of dextroamphetamine combined with task-relevant training facilitates recovery after focal brain injury. Results of clinical trials in patients with stroke have been inconsistent.ObjectivesTo collect data important for future studies evaluating the effect of dextroamphetamine combined with physiotherapy for improving poststroke motor recovery and to test the efficacy of the approach.Design, setting, participantsThis pilot, double-blind, block-randomized clinical trial included patients with cortical or subcortical ischemic stroke and moderate or severe motor deficits from 5 rehabilitation hospitals or units. Participants were screened and enrolled from March 2001 through March 2003. The primary outcome was assessed 3 months after stroke. Study analysis was completed December 31, 2015. A total of 1665 potential participants were screened and 64 were randomized. Participants had to begin treatment 10 to 30 days after ischemic stroke. Data analysis was based on intention to treat.InterventionsParticipants were allocated to a regimen of 10 mg of dextroamphetamine (n = 32) or placebo (n = 32) combined with a 1-hour physical therapy session beginning 1 hour after drug or placebo administration every 4 days for 6 sessions in addition to standard rehabilitation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference between groups in change in Fugl-Meyer motor scores from baseline to 3 months after stroke (intention to treat with dextroamphetamine). Secondary exploratory measures included the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, Canadian Neurological Scale, Action Research Arm Test, modified Rankin Scale score, Functional Independence Measure, Ambulation Speed and Distance, Mini-Mental State Examination, Beck Depression Inventory, and Stroke Impact Scale.ResultsAmong the 64 patients randomized to dextroamphetamine vs placebo (55% men; median age, 66 years; age range, 27-91 years), no overall treatment-associated difference in the mean (SEM) change in Fugl-Meyer motor scores from baseline to 3 months after stroke was noted (-18.65 [2.27] points with dextroamphetamine vs -20.83 [2.94] points with placebo; P = .58). No overall treatment-associated differences in any of the study's secondary measures and no differences in subgroups based on stroke location or baseline severity were found. No adverse events were attributed to study treatments.Conclusions and relevanceTreatment with dextroamphetamine combined with physical therapy did not improve recovery of motor function compared with placebo combined with physical therapy as assessed 3 months after hemispheric ischemic stroke. The studied treatment regimen was safe.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01905371.

Project description:BackgroundTo determine if low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting the primary motor cortex contralateral (M1CL) to the affected corticospinal tract in patients with hemiparetic stroke augments intensive training-related clinical improvement; an extension of the NICHE trial (Navigated Inhibitory rTMS to Contralesional Hemisphere Trial) using an alternative sham coil.MethodsThe present E-FIT trial (Electric Field Navigated 1Hz rTMS for Post-stroke Motor Recovery Trial) included 5 of 12 NICHE trial outpatient US rehabilitation centers. The stimulation protocol remained identical (1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, M1CL, preceding 60-minute therapy, 18 sessions/6 wks; parallel arm randomized clinical trial). The sham coil appearance mimicked the active coil but without the weak electric field in the NICHE trial sham coil. Outcomes measured 1 week, and 1, 3, and 6 months after the end of treatment included the following: upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (primary, 6 months after end of treatment), Action Research Arm Test, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, quality of life (EQ-5D), and safety.ResultsOf 60 participants randomized, 58 completed treatment and were included for analysis. Bayesian analysis of combined data from the E-FIT and the NICHE trials indicated that active treatment was not superior to sham at the primary end point (posterior mean odds ratio of 1.94 [96% credible interval of 0.61-4.80]). For the E-FIT intent-to-treat population, upper extremity Fugl-Meyer improvement ≥5 pts occurred in 60% (18/30) active group and 50% (14/28) sham group. Participants enrolled 3 to 6 months following stroke had a 67% (31%-91% CI) response rate in the active group at the 6-month end point versus 50% in the sham group (21.5%-78.5% CI). There were significant improvements from baseline to 6 months for both active and sham groups in upper extremity Fugl-Meyer, Action Research Arm Test, and EQ-5D (P<0.05). Improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was observed only in the active group (P=0.004). Ten serious unrelated adverse events occurred (4 active group, 6 sham group, P=0.72).ConclusionsIntensive motor rehabilitation 3 to 12 months after stroke improved clinical impairment, function, and quality of life; however, 1 Hz-repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was not an effective treatment adjuvant in the present sample population with mixed lesion location and extent.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT03010462.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trials suggest that higher doses of task-oriented training are superior to current clinical practice for patients with stroke with upper extremity motor deficits.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of a structured, task-oriented motor training program vs usual and customary occupational therapy (UCC) during stroke rehabilitation.Design, setting, and participantsPhase 3, pragmatic, single-blind randomized trial among 361 participants with moderate motor impairment recruited from 7 US hospitals over 44 months, treated in the outpatient setting from June 2009 to March 2014.InterventionsStructured, task-oriented upper extremity training (Accelerated Skill Acquisition Program [ASAP]; n = 119); dose-equivalent occupational therapy (DEUCC; n = 120); or monitoring-only occupational therapy (UCC; n = 122). The DEUCC group was prescribed 30 one-hour sessions over 10 weeks; the UCC group was only monitored, without specification of dose.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 12-month change in log-transformed Wolf Motor Function Test time score (WMFT, consisting of a mean of 15 timed arm movements and hand dexterity tasks). Secondary outcomes were change in WMFT time score (minimal clinically important difference [MCID] = 19 seconds) and proportion of patients improving ≥25 points on the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) hand function score (MCID = 17.8 points).ResultsAmong the 361 randomized patients (mean age, 60.7 years; 56% men; 42% African American; mean time since stroke onset, 46 days), 304 (84%) completed the 12-month primary outcome assessment; in intention-to-treat analysis, mean group change scores (log WMFT, baseline to 12 months) were, for the ASAP group, 2.2 to 1.4 (difference, 0.82); DEUCC group, 2.0 to 1.2 (difference, 0.84); and UCC group, 2.1 to 1.4 (difference, 0.75), with no significant between-group differences (ASAP vs DEUCC: 0.14; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.33; P = .16; ASAP vs UCC: -0.01; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.21; P = .94; and DEUCC vs UCC: -0.14; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.05; P = .15). Secondary outcomes for the ASAP group were WMFT change score, -8.8 seconds, and improved SIS, 73%; DEUCC group, WMFT, -8.1 seconds, and SIS, 72%; and UCC group, WMFT, -7.2 seconds, and SIS, 69%, with no significant pairwise between-group differences (ASAP vs DEUCC: WMFT, 1.8 seconds; 95% CI, -0.8 to 4.5 seconds; P = .18; improved SIS, 1%; 95% CI, -12% to 13%; P = .54; ASAP vs UCC: WMFT, -0.6 seconds, 95% CI, -3.8 to 2.6 seconds; P = .72; improved SIS, 4%; 95% CI, -9% to 16%; P = .48; and DEUCC vs UCC: WMFT, -2.1 seconds; 95% CI, -4.5 to 0.3 seconds; P = .08; improved SIS, 3%; 95% CI, -9% to 15%; P = .22). A total of 168 serious adverse events occurred in 109 participants, resulting in 8 patients withdrawing from the study.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with motor stroke and primarily moderate upper extremity impairment, use of a structured, task-oriented rehabilitation program did not significantly improve motor function or recovery beyond either an equivalent or a lower dose of UCC upper extremity rehabilitation. These findings do not support superiority of this program among patients with motor stroke and primarily moderate upper extremity impairment.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00871715.

Dataset Information

Effect of Specific Over Nonspecific VR-Based Rehabilitation on Poststroke Motor Recovery: A Systematic Meta-analysis.

Publications

Effect of Specific Over Nonspecific VR-Based Rehabilitation on Poststroke Motor Recovery: A Systematic Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets