Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Stochastic resonance stimulation for upper limb rehabilitation poststroke
Stein J, Hughes R, d'Andrea S, Therrien B, Niemi J, Krebs K, Langone L, Harry J
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2010 Sep;89(9):697-705
clinical trial
10/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: Yes; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have shown that subthreshold electrical or mechanical noise can reduce the sensory threshold and impart short-term improvements in sensorimotor function. We undertook this study to examine the effects of combined subsensory electrical and vibratory stimulation in conjunction with exercise training on long-term motor performance. DESIGN: Thirty subjects were recruited from adult community-dwelling stroke survivors with residual hemiparesis. Subjects were screened for residual motor ability using a functional task, and those who functioned below this level were excluded. All subjects had a history of a single unilateral ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke at least 6 mos before study entry and were not actively receiving occupational or physical therapy. Subjects were stratified by baseline upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (UEFM) (more impaired (28 to 35) and less impaired (36 to 55)) and were randomized to one of two groups: treatment (stochastic resonance stimulation +/- exercise 15 subjects) and control (sham stimulation +/- exercise 15 subjects). RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the stochastic resonance treatment and control group in the UEFM or in any of the secondary measures. The combined group showed modest improvements in UEFM from baseline to completion of therapy (mean improvement 2.6 points) (p = 0.004); however, these improvements declined by 1-mo follow-up to 1.5 points (p = 0.055). No change in sensory function was detectable. CONCLUSIONS: Stochastic resonance therapy combined with occupational therapy was no more effective than occupational therapy alone in restoring sensorimotor performance. Other stochastic resonance stimulation montages or protocols might prove more effective.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help