Dataset Information

To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke.

ABSTRACT: Background: Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin's surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke.

Main text: Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The findings of included studies were synthesized to describe: the safety of RSS, in whom and when after stroke it has been used, the doses used and its effectiveness.

Results: Eight studies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. The majority of studies used RSS in participants with mild or moderate impairments and in the chronic stage after stroke. Four studies used RSS in a single treatment session, reporting significant improvements in strength and hand function. Findings from longitudinal studies showed few significant differences between control and experimental groups. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of included studies.

Conclusions: This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of RSS for the upper-limb after stroke in clinical practice. However, this review highlights several clear research priorities including establishing the mechanism and in whom RSS may work, its safety and optimal treatment parameters to improve function of the upper-limb after stroke.

SUBMITTER: Stockley RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7708198 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke.

Stockley Rachel C RC Hanna Kerry K Connell Louise L

Archives of physiotherapy 20201130 1

<h4>Background</h4>Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin's surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke.<h4>Main text</h4>Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The fi ...[more]

PMID: 33292869

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising intervention to promote upper limb recovery after stroke. We aimed to identify differences in the efficacy of rTMS treatment on upper limb function depending on the onset time post-stroke. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs from their inception to February 2018. RCTs on the effects of rTMS on upper limb function in adult patients with stroke were included. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed independently by two authors. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes on individual upper limb outcome measures (function or activity) and for function and activity measures jointly, categorized by timing of treatment initiation. Timing of treatment initiation post-stroke was categorized as follows: acute to early subacute (<1 month), early subacute (1-3 months), late subacute (3-6 months), and chronic (>6 months). Results: We included 38 studies involving 1,074 stroke patients. Subgroup analysis demonstrated benefit of rTMS applied within the first month post-stroke [MD = 9.31; 95% confidence interval (6.27-12.34); P < 0.0001], but not in the early subacute phase (1-3 months post-stroke) [MD = 1.14; 95% confidence interval (-5.32 to 7.59), P = 0.73) or chronic phase (>6 months post-stroke) [MD = 1.79; 95% confidence interval (-2.00 to 5.59]; P = 0.35), when assessed with a function test [Fugl-Meyer Arm test (FMA)]. There were no studies within the late subacute phase (3-6 months post-stroke) that used the FMA. Tests at the level of function revealed improved upper limb function after rTMS [SMD = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (0.02-0.75); P = 0.0001], but tests at the level of activity did not, independent of rTMS onset post-stroke [SMD = 0.17; 95% confidence interval (-0.09 to 0.44); P = 0.19]. Heterogeneities in the results of the individual studies included in the main analyses were large, as suggested by funnel plot asymmetry. Conclusions: Based on the FMA, rTMS seems more beneficial only when started in the first month post-stroke. Tests at the level of function are likely more sensitive to detect beneficial rTMS effects on upper limb function than tests at the level of activity. However, heterogeneities in treatment designs and outcomes are high. Future rTMS trials should include the FMA and work toward a core set of outcome measures.

Project description:BackgroundReduction in sensorimotor function of the upper limb is a common and persistent impairment after stroke, and less than half of stroke survivors recover even basic function of the upper limb after a year. Previous work in stroke has shown that repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) of the upper limb may benefit motor function. As yet, there have been no investigations of RSS in the early-acute period despite this being the time window during which the neuroplastic processes underpinning sensorimotor recovery are likely to occur.MethodsA single-blinded, stratified, randomised controlled feasibility study was undertaken at two NHS acute trusts to determine the recruitment rate, intervention adherence, and safety and acceptability of an RSS intervention in the early period after stroke. Participants were recruited within 2 weeks of index stroke. Stratified on arm function, they were randomised to receive either 45 min of daily RSS and usual care or usual care alone (UC) for 2 weeks. Changes from baseline on the primary outcome of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) to measurements taken by a blinded assessor were examined after completion of the intervention (2 weeks) and at 3 months from randomisation.ResultsForty patients were recruited and randomised (RSS n = 23; UC n = 17) with a recruitment rate of 9.5% (40/417) of patients admitted with a stroke of which 52 (12.5%) were potentially eligible, with 10 declining to participate for various reasons. Participants found the RSS intervention acceptable and adherence was good. The intervention was safe and there were no serious adverse events.ConclusionsThis study indicates that recruitment to a trial of RSS in the acute period after stroke is feasible. The intervention was well tolerated and appeared to provide additional benefit to usual care. In addition to a definitive trial of efficacy, further work is warranted to examine the effects of varying doses of RSS upon arm function and the mechanism by which RSS induces sensorimotor recovery in the acute period after stroke.Trial registrationISRCTN, registry no: ISRCTN17422343 ; IRAS Project ID: 215137. Registered on October 2016.

Project description:BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a promising therapy to promote recovery of the upper limb after stroke. According to the regulation of cortical excitability, rTMS can be divided into excitatory rTMS and inhibitory rTMS, and excitatory rTMS includes high-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS) or intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS). We aimed to evaluate the effects of excitatory rTMS over the ipsilesional hemisphere on upper limb motor recovery after stroke.MethodsDatabases of PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published before 31 December 2021. RCTs on the effects of HF-rTMS or iTBS on upper limb function in patients diagnosed with stroke were included. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed quality. The meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager Version 5.4 software.ResultsFifteen studies with 449 participants were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis found that excitatory rTMS had significant efficacy on upper limb motor function (MD = 5.88, 95% CI, 3.32-8.43, P < 0.001), hand strength (SMD = 0.53, 95% CI, 0.04-1.01, P = 0.03), and hand dexterity (SMD = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.39-1.14, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses based on different types of rTMS showed that both iTBS and HF-rTMS significantly promoted upper limb motor function (iTBS, P < 0.001; HF-rTMS, P < 0.001) and hand dexterity (iTBS, P = 0.01; HF-rTMS, P < 0.001) but not hand strength (iTBS, P = 0.07; HF-rTMS, P = 0.12). Further subgroup analysis based on the duration of illness demonstrated that applying excitatory rTMS during the first 3 months (<1 month, P = 0.01; 1-3 months, P = 0.001) after stroke brought significant improvement in upper limb motor function but not in the patients with a duration longer than 3 months (P = 0.06). We found that HF-rTMS significantly enhanced the motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude of affected hemisphere (SMD = 0.82, 95% CI, 0.32-1.33, P = 0.001).ConclusionOur study demonstrated that excitatory rTMS over the ipsilesional hemisphere could significantly improve upper limb motor function, hand strength, and hand dexterity in patients diagnosed with stroke. Both iTBS and HF-rTMS which could significantly promote upper limb motor function and hand dexterity, and excitatory rTMS were beneficial to upper limb motor function recovery only when applied in the first 3 months after stroke. HF-rTMS could significantly enhance the MEP amplitude of the affected hemisphere. High-quality and large-scale randomized controlled trials in the future are required to confirm our conclusions.Clinical trial registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022312288.

Project description:BackgroundThe recovery of upper extremity motor impairment after stroke remains a challenging task. The clinical effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which is believed to aid in the recovery process, is still uncertain.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline (Ovid), Cochrane and Embase electronic databases from March 28, 2014, to March 28, 2023. The inclusion criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of rTMS on the recovery of upper limb motor impairment among stroke patients. Various measurements, including the Fugl Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity Scale (FMA-UE), Brunnstrom recovery stage, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and Barthel index, were evaluated both before and after the intervention.ResultsNineteen articles with 865 patients were included. When considering only the rTMS parameters, both inhibitory and excitatory rTMS improved FMA-UE (MD = 1.87, 95% CI = [0.88]-[2.86], p < 0.001) and Barthel index (MD = 9.73, 95% CI = [4.57]-[14.89], p < 0.001). When considering only the severity of upper limb hemiplegia, both less severe (MD = 1.56, 95% CI = [0.64]-[2.49], p < 0.001) and severe (MD = 2.05, 95% CI = [1.09]-[3.00], p < 0.001) hemiplegia benefited from rTMS based on FMA-UE. However, when considering the rTMS parameters, severity of hemiplegia and stroke stages simultaneously, inhibitory rTMS was found to be significantly effective for less severe hemiplegia in the acute and subacute phases (MD = 4.55, 95% CI = [2.49]-[6.60], p < 0.001), but not in the chronic phase based on FMA-UE. For severe hemiplegia, inhibitory rTMS was not significantly effective in the acute and subacute phases, but significantly effective in the chronic phase (MD = 2.10, 95% CI = [0.75]-[3.45], p = 0.002) based on FMA-UE. Excitatory rTMS was found to be significantly effective for less severe hemiplegia in the acute and subacute phases (MD = 1.93, 95% CI = [0.58]-[3.28], p = 0.005) based on FMA-UE. The improvements in Brunnstrom recovery stage and ARAT need further research.ConclusionThe effectiveness of rTMS depends on its parameters, severity of hemiplegia, and stroke stages. It is important to consider all these factors together, as any single grouping method is incomplete.

Project description:Background: Repetitive peripheral nerve sensory stimulation (RPSS) has emerged as a potential adjuvant strategy to motor training in stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that 3 h sessions of active RPSS associated with functional electrical stimulation (FES) and task-specific training (TST) distributed three times a week, over 6 weeks, is more beneficial to improve upper limb motor function than sham RPSS in addition to FES and TST, in subjects with moderate to severe hand motor impairments in the chronic phase (>6 months) after stroke. Methods: In this single-center, randomized, placebo controlled, parallel-group, double-blind study we compare the effects of 18 sessions of active and sham RPSS as add-on interventions to FES and task-specific training of the paretic upper limb, in 40 subjects in the chronic phase after ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, with Fugl-Meyer upper limb scores ranging from 7 to 50 and able to voluntarily activate any active range of wrist extension. The primary outcome measure is the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) after 6 weeks of treatment. The secondary outcomes are the WMFT at 3, 10, and 18 weeks after beginning of treatment, as well as the following outcomes measured at 3, 6, 10, and 18 weeks: Motor Activity Log; active range of motion of wrist extension and flexion; grasp and pinch strength in the paretic and non-paretic sides (the order of testing is randomized within and across subjects); Modified Ashworth Scale; Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Limb in the paretic arm; Barthel Index; Stroke Impact Scale. Discussion: This project represents a major step in developing a rehabilitation strategy with potential to have impact on the treatment of stroke patients with poor motor recovery in developing countries worldwide. The study preliminarily evaluates a straightforward, non-invasive, inexpensive intervention. If feasibility and preliminary efficacy are demonstrated, further investigations of the proposed intervention (underlying mechanisms/ effects in larger numbers of patients) should be performed. Trial Registration: NCT02658578.

Dataset Information

To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke.

Publications

To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets