Dataset Information

Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mirror therapy is used to improve motor function after stroke. During mirror therapy, a mirror is placed in the person's midsagittal plane, thus reflecting movements of the non-paretic side as if it were the affected side.

Objectives

To summarise the effectiveness of mirror therapy compared with no treatment, placebo or sham therapy, or other treatments for improving motor function and motor impairment after stroke. We also aimed to assess the effects of mirror therapy on activities of daily living, pain, and visuospatial neglect.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro (last searched 16 August 2017). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, researchers and experts in our field of study.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised cross-over trials comparing mirror therapy with any control intervention for people after stroke.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently selected trials based on the inclusion criteria, documented the methodological quality, assessed risks of bias in the included studies, and extracted data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables, and as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables.

Main results

We included 62 studies with a total of 1982 participants that compared mirror therapy with other interventions. Of these, 57 were randomised controlled trials and five randomised cross-over trials. Participants had a mean age of 59 years (30 to 73 years). Mirror therapy was provided three to seven times a week, between 15 and 60 minutes for each session for two to eight weeks (on average five times a week, 30 minutes a session for four weeks).When compared with all other interventions, we found moderate-quality evidence that mirror therapy has a significant positive effect on motor function (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; 1173 participants; 36 studies) and motor impairment (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.66; 1292 participants; 39 studies). However, effects on motor function are influenced by the type of control intervention. Additionally, based on moderate-quality evidence, mirror therapy may improve activities of daily living (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.65; 622 participants; 19 studies). We found low-quality evidence for a significant positive effect on pain (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.11; 248 participants; 6 studies) and no clear effect for improving visuospatial neglect (SMD 1.06, 95% CI -0.10 to 2.23; 175 participants; 5 studies). No adverse effects were reported.

Authors' conclusions

The results indicate evidence for the effectiveness of mirror therapy for improving upper extremity motor function, motor impairment, activities of daily living, and pain, at least as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation for people after stroke. Major limitations are small sample sizes and lack of reporting of methodological details, resulting in uncertain evidence quality.

SUBMITTER: Thieme H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6513639 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Mirror therapy is effective in the recovery of upper-limb function among post-stroke patients. An important component of mirror therapy is imagining finger movements. This study aimed to determine the influence of finger movement complexity and mirror image clarity on facilitating motor and visuo-motor activities in post-stroke patients. Methods: Fifteen post-stroke patients and 18 right-handed healthy participants performed simple or complex finger tapping while viewing mirror images of these movements at varying levels of clarity. The physical setup was identical to typical mirror therapy. Functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to capture the brain activities elicited in the bilateral primary motor cortices (M1) and the precuneus using a block experimental design. Results: In both study groups, the "complex finger-tapping task with blurred mirror image" condition resulted in lower intensity (p < 0.01) and authenticity (p < 0.01) of the kinesthetic mirror illusion, and higher levels of perceived effort in generating the illusion (p < 0.01), relative to the "simple finger-tapping with clear mirror image" condition. Greater changes in the oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) concentration were recorded at the ipsilesional and ipsilateral M1 in the "complex finger-tapping task with blurred mirror image" condition relative to that recorded in the "simple finger-tapping task with clear mirror image" condition (p = 0.03). These HbO concentration changes were not significant in the precuneus. Post-stroke patients showed greater changes than their healthy counterparts at the ipsilesional M1 (F = 5.08; p = 0.03; partial eta squared = 0.14) and the precuneus (F = 7.71; p < 0.01; partial eta squared = 0.20). Conclusion: The complexity and image clarity of the finger movements increased the neural activities in the ipsilesional motor cortex in the post-stroke patients. These findings suggest plausible roles for top-down attention and working memory in the treatment effects of mirror therapy. Future research can aim to corroborate these findings by using a longitudinal design to examine the use of mirror therapy to promote upper limb motor recovery in post-stroke patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The timing of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with neurorehabilitation interventions may affect its modulatory effects. Motor function has been reported to be modulated by the timing of tDCS; however, whether the timing of tDCS would also affect restoration of daily function and upper extremity motor control with neurorehabilitation in stroke patients remains largely unexplored. Mirror therapy (MT) is a potentially effective neurorehabilitation approach for improving paretic arm function in stroke patients. This study aimed to determine whether the timing of tDCS with MT would influence treatment effects on daily function, motor function and motor control in individuals with chronic stroke. METHODS:This study was a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Twenty-eight individuals with chronic stroke received one of the following three interventions: (1) sequentially combined tDCS with MT (SEQ), (2) concurrently combined tDCS with MT (CON), and (3) sham tDCS with MT (SHAM). Participants received interventions for 90?min/day, 5?days/week for 4?weeks. Daily function was assessed using the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. Upper extremity motor function was assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scale. Upper extremity motor control was evaluated using movement kinematic assessments. RESULTS:There were significant differences in daily function between the three groups. The SEQ group had greater improvement in daily function than the CON and SHAM groups. Kinematic analyses showed that movement time of the paretic hand significantly reduced in the SEQ group after interventions. All three groups had significant improvement in motor function from pre-intervention to post-intervention. CONCLUSION:The timing of tDCS with MT may influence restoration of daily function and movement efficiency of the paretic hand in chronic stroke patients. Sequentially applying tDCS prior to MT seems to be advantageous for enhancing daily function and hand movement control, and may be considered as a potentially useful strategy in future clinical application. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02827864 . Registered on 29th June, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundMany therapeutic interventions are performed by physiotherapists to improve upper extremity function and/or activities of daily living (ADL) in stroke patients. Mirror therapy (MT) is a simple technique that can be self-administered by the patients with intact cognition following patient education by a skilled physiotherapist. However, the effectiveness of self-administered MT in post-stroke patients in upper extremity function remains unclear. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of MT in improving upper extremity function and recovery in acute stroke patients.MethodsThis study is a single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled trial with blinded outcome evaluation (PROBE design), in which a total of 36 eligible acute stroke patients will be randomly assigned to control (n=18) and experimental group (n=18). Participants in the control group will receive regular rehabilitation interventions whereas participants in the experimental group will receive MT education in addition to their regular interventions for 4 weeks.Study outcomeThe primary outcome measure will be upper extremity function that will be measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale and the Wolf Motor Function Test. The secondary outcome measure will be behaviors related to ADL as estimated using the Modified Barthel Index. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline and at 4 weeks post-rehabilitation intervention/MT.ResultsA two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) with time and group effects will be used to analyze between-group differences. The level of significance will be set at P < 0.05.ConclusionThe results of the study will provide critical information to include self-administered MT as an adjuvant to regular interventions and may facilitate recovery of the upper extremity function of stroke patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04542772 . Registered on 9 September 2020. Protocol version: Final 1.0.

Project description:Background and purposeImpaired upper extremity (UE) motor function is a common disability after ischemic stroke. Exposure to extremely low frequency and low intensity electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) in a frequency-specific manner (Electromagnetic Network Targeting Field therapy; ENTF therapy) is a non-invasive method available to a wide range of patients that may enhance neuroplasticity, potentially facilitating motor recovery. This study seeks to quantify the benefit of the ENTF therapy on UE motor function in a subacute ischemic stroke population.MethodsIn a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial, ischemic stroke patients in the subacute phase with moderately to severely impaired UE function were randomly allocated to active or sham treatment with a novel, non-invasive, brain computer interface-based, extremely low frequency and low intensity ENTF therapy (1-100 Hz, < 1 G). Participants received 40 min of active ENTF or sham treatment 5 days/week for 8 weeks; ~three out of the five treatments were accompanied by 10 min of concurrent physical/occupational therapy. Primary efficacy outcome was improvement on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) from baseline to end of treatment (8 weeks).ResultsIn the per protocol set (13 ENTF and 8 sham participants), mean age was 54.7 years (±15.0), 19% were female, baseline FMA-UE score was 23.7 (±11.0), and median time from stroke onset to first stimulation was 11 days (interquartile range (IQR) 8-15). Greater improvement on the FMA-UE from baseline to week 4 was seen with ENTF compared to sham stimulation, 23.2 ± 14.1 vs. 9.6 ± 9.0, p = 0.007; baseline to week 8 improvement was 31.5 ± 10.7 vs. 23.1 ± 14.1. Similar favorable effects at week 8 were observed for other UE and global disability assessments, including the Action Research Arm Test (Pinch, 13.4 ± 5.6 vs. 5.3 ± 6.5, p = 0.008), Box and Blocks Test (affected hand, 22.5 ± 12.4 vs. 8.5 ± 8.6, p < 0.0001), and modified Rankin Scale (-2.5 ± 0.7 vs. -1.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.0005). No treatment-related adverse events were reported.ConclusionsENTF stimulation in subacute ischemic stroke patients was associated with improved UE motor function and reduced overall disability, and results support its safe use in the indicated population. These results should be confirmed in larger multicenter studies.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04039178, identifier: NCT04039178.