Dataset Information

Serious games for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Approximately two thirds of stroke survivors maintain upper limb (UL) impairments and few among them attain complete UL recovery 6 months after stroke. Technological progress and gamification of interventions aim for better outcomes and constitute opportunities in self- and tele-rehabilitation.

Objectives

Our objective was to assess the efficacy of serious games, implemented on diverse technological systems, targeting UL recovery after stroke. In addition, we investigated whether adherence to neurorehabilitation principles influenced efficacy of games specifically designed for rehabilitation, regardless of the device used.

Method

This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: 156589). Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible randomized controlled trials (PEDro score ≥ 5). Meta-analysis, using a random effects model, was performed to compare effects of interventions using serious games, to conventional treatment, for UL rehabilitation in adult stroke patients. In addition, we conducted subgroup analysis, according to adherence of included studies to a consolidated set of 11 neurorehabilitation principles.

Results

Meta-analysis of 42 trials, including 1760 participants, showed better improvements in favor of interventions using serious games when compared to conventional therapies, regarding UL function (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.70; P < 0.0001), activity (SMD = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.46; P = 0.02) and participation (SMD = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.29 to 1.03; P = 0.0005). Additionally, long term effect retention was observed for UL function (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.79; P = 0.03). Interventions using serious games that complied with at least 8 neurorehabilitation principles showed better overall effects. Although heterogeneity levels remained moderate, results were little affected by changes in methods or outliers indicating robustness.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that rehabilitation through serious games, targeting UL recovery after stroke, leads to better improvements, compared to conventional treatment, in three ICF-WHO components. Irrespective of the technological device used, higher adherence to a consolidated set of neurorehabilitation principles enhances efficacy of serious games. Future development of stroke-specific rehabilitation interventions should further take into consideration the consolidated set of neurorehabilitation principles.

SUBMITTER: Doumas I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204490 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) is a disease with neurological and systemic involvement. Clinical assessment tools commonly used for FRDA become less effective in evaluating decay in patients with advanced FRDA, particularly when they are in a wheelchair. Further motor worsening mainly impairs upper limb function. In this study, we tested if serious games (SG) developed for rehabilitation can be used as an assessment tool for upper limb function even in patients with advanced FRDA. METHODS:A specific SG has been developed for physical rehabilitation of patients suffering from neurologic diseases. The use of this SG, coupled with Kinect sensor, has been validated to perform functional evaluation of the upper limbs with healthy subjects across lifespan. Twenty-seven FRDA patients were included in the study. Patients were invited to perform upper limb rehabilitation exercises embedded in SG. Motions were recorded by the Kinect and clinically relevant parameters were extracted from the collected motions. We tested if the existence of correlations between the scores from the serious games and the severity of the disease using clinical assessment tools commonly used for FRDA. Results of patients were compared with a group a healthy subjects of similar age. RESULTS:Very highly significant differences were found for time required to perform the exercise (increase of 76%, t(68)?=?7.22, P?<?0.001) and for accuracy (decrease of 6%, t(68)?=?-?3.69, P?<?0.001) between patients and healthy subjects. Concerning the patients significant correlations were found between age and time (R?=?0.65, p?=?0.015), accuracy (R?=?-?0.75, p?=?0.004) and the total displacement of upper limbs. (R?=?0.55, p?=?0.031). Statistically significant correlations were found between the age of diagnosis and speed related parameters. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study indicate that SG reliably captures motor impairment of FRDA patients due to cerebellar and pyramidal involvement. Results also show that functional evaluation of FRDA patients can be performed during rehabilitation therapy embedded in games with the patient seated in a wheelchair. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was approved as a component of the EFACTS study ( Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02069509 , registered May 2010) by the local institutional Ethics Committee (ref. P2010/132).

Project description:BackgroundNeuroscience and neurotechnology are transforming stroke rehabilitation. Robotic devices, in addition to telerehabilitation, are increasingly being used to train the upper limbs after stroke, and their use at home allows us to extend institutional rehabilitation by increasing and prolonging therapy. The aim of this study is to assess the usability of the MERLIN robotic system based on serious games for upper limb rehabilitation in people with stroke in the home environment.Methods9 participants with a stroke in three different stages of recovery (subacute, short-term chronic and long-term chronic) with impaired arm/hand function, were recruited to use the MERLIN system for 3 weeks: 1 week training at the Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute of Cordoba (IMIBIC), and 2 weeks at the patients' homes. To evaluate usability, the System Usability Scale (SUS), Adapted Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST), and the ArmAssist Usability Assessment Questionnaire were used in the post-intervention. Clinical outcomes for upper limb motor function were assessed pre- and post-intervention.Results9 patients participated in and completed the study. The usability assessment reported a high level of satisfaction: mean SUS score 71.94 % (SD = 16.38), mean QUEST scale 3.81 (SD = 0.38), and mean Adapted IMI score 6.12 (SD = 1.36). The results of the ArmAssist Questionnaire showed an average of 6 out of 7, which indicates that MERLIN is extremely intuitive, easy to learn and easy to use. Regarding clinical assessment, the Fugl-Meyer scores showed moderate improvements from pre- to post-intervention in the total score of motor function (p = 0.002). There were no significant changes in the Modified Ashworth scale outcomes (p = 0.169).ConclusionsThis usability study indicates that home-based rehabilitation for upper limbs with the MERLIN system is safe, useful, feasible and motivating. Telerehabilitation constitutes a major step forward in the use of intensive rehabilitation at home. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04405609. Registered 06 January 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04405609.

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:Introduction: Stroke rehabilitation should start early in order to optimize patients' outcomes, but most trials include subacute or chronic patients. Although suggested that early stroke rehabilitation trials face difficulties regarding patient recruitment with corresponding low recruitment rates, no systematically collected information regarding screening and associated costs has been published. Such knowledge is essential for optimizing enrollment. Therefore, this study evaluated screening procedures for an early upper limb rehabilitation study including first-ever ischemic stroke patients <48 h after onset. Methods: Screening data for a monocentric longitudinal observational cohort study was prospectively collected. Researchers screened health-care records, during the morning round and face-to-face at the stroke-unit on working days. Outcomes were the recruitment rate, reasons for non-enrollment, and screening costs. Results: Over 15 months, 27 out of 845 screened ischemic stroke patients were enrolled, equaling a recruitment rate of 1.8/month. Main reasons for non-enrollment were no upper limb paresis (N = 456), >48 h post-stroke (N = 257), general comorbidity (N = 150), unable to follow commands (N = 148), and recurrent stroke (N = 146). Four patients were missed due to time constraints of the personnel or patient. The recruitment rate would have been 1.2 higher if also patients with recurrent strokes but without residual motor deficits or pre-stroke mRS ≥2 were considered eligible. Screening costed € 7.48 per patient. Discussion: Screening at working days is sufficient to enroll patients in early stroke rehabilitation trials. Inclusion criteria regarding recurrent strokes should be less stringent to boost recruitment rates without increasing bias. Multicenter collaborations are needed to finish well-powered early stroke rehabilitation studies within a reasonable time. Ethics and Study Registration: Authorization from the local ethical committee was not required, as this study does not fall within the scope of the Human Research Act (BASEC Identifier: Req-2017-00844). The project was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03633422).

Project description:Stroke is the primary cause of adult disability. To support this large population in recovery, robotic technologies are being developed to assist in the delivery of rehabilitation. This paper presents an automated system for a rehabilitation robotic device that guides stroke patients through an upper-limb reaching task. The system uses a decision theoretic model (a partially observable Markov decision process, or POMDP) as its primary engine for decision making. The POMDP allows the system to automatically modify exercise parameters to account for the specific needs and abilities of different individuals, and to use these parameters to take appropriate decisions about stroke rehabilitation exercises.The performance of the system was evaluated by comparing the decisions made by the system with those of a human therapist. A single patient participant was paired up with a therapist participant for the duration of the study, for a total of six sessions. Each session was an hour long and occurred three times a week for two weeks. During each session, three steps were followed: (A) after the system made a decision, the therapist either agreed or disagreed with the decision made; (B) the researcher had the device execute the decision made by the therapist; (C) the patient then performed the reaching exercise. These parts were repeated in the order of A-B-C until the end of the session. Qualitative and quantitative question were asked at the end of each session and at the completion of the study for both participants.Overall, the therapist agreed with the system decisions approximately 65% of the time. In general, the therapist thought the system decisions were believable and could envision this system being used in both a clinical and home setting. The patient was satisfied with the system and would use this system as his/her primary method of rehabilitation.The data collected in this study can only be used to provide insight into the performance of the system since the sample size was limited. The next stage for this project is to test the system with a larger sample size to obtain significant results.

Project description:Upper limb motor deficits in severe stroke survivors often remain unresolved over extended time periods. Novel neurotechnologies have the potential to significantly support upper limb motor restoration in severely impaired stroke individuals. Here, we review recent controlled clinical studies and reviews focusing on the mechanisms of action and effectiveness of single and combined technology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation after stroke, including robotics, muscular electrical stimulation, brain stimulation and brain computer/machine interfaces. We aim at identifying possible guidance for the optimal use of these new technologies to enhance upper limb motor recovery especially in severe chronic stroke patients. We found that the current literature does not provide enough evidence to support strict guidelines, because of the variability of the procedures for each intervention and of the heterogeneity of the stroke population. The present results confirm that neurotechnology-aided upper limb rehabilitation is promising for severe chronic stroke patients, but the combination of interventions often lacks understanding of single intervention mechanisms of action, which may not reflect the summation of single intervention's effectiveness. Stroke rehabilitation is a long and complex process, and one single intervention administrated in a short time interval cannot have a large impact for motor recovery, especially in severely impaired patients. To design personalized interventions combining or proposing different interventions in sequence, it is necessary to have an excellent understanding of the mechanisms determining the effectiveness of a single treatment in this heterogeneous population of stroke patients. We encourage the identification of objective biomarkers for stroke recovery for patients' stratification and to tailor treatments. Furthermore, the advantage of longitudinal personalized trial designs compared to classical double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials as the basis for precise personalized stroke rehabilitation medicine is discussed. Finally, we also promote the necessary conceptual change from 'one-suits-all' treatments within in-patient clinical rehabilitation set-ups towards personalized home-based treatment strategies, by adopting novel technologies merging rehabilitation and motor assistance, including implantable ones.