Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
| Unilateral versus bilateral hybrid approaches for upper limb rehabilitation in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial controlled trial |
| Hung C-S, Lin K-C, Chang W-Y, Huang W-C, Chang Y-J, Chen C-L, Yao KG, Lee Y-Y |
| Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2019 Dec;100(12):2225-2232 |
| clinical trial |
| 8/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; 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* |
|
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of unilateral hybrid therapy (UHT) and bilateral hybrid therapy (BHT) compared with robot-assisted therapy (RT) alone in patients with chronic stroke. DESIGN: A single-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Four hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients with chronic stroke and mild to moderate motor impairment (N = 44). INTERVENTION: UHT combined unilateral RT (URT) and modified constraint-induced therapy. BHT combined bilateral RT (BRT) and bilateral arm training. The RT group received URT and BRT. The intervention frequency for the 3 groups was 90 min/d 3 d/wk for 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA, divided into the proximal and distal subscale) and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) version 3.0 scores before, immediately after, and 3 months after treatment and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) and Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale scores before and immediately after treatment. RESULTS: The results favored BHT over UHT on the FMA total score and distal score at the posttest (p = 0.03 and 0.04) and follow-up (p = 0.01 and 0.047) assessment and BHT over RT on the follow-up FMA distal scores (p = 0.03). At the posttest assessment, the WMFT and SIS scores of the 3 groups improved significantly without between-group differences, and the RT group showed significantly greater improvement in the mobility domain of NEADL compared with the BHT group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: BHT was more effective for improving upper extremity motor function, particularly distal motor function at follow-up, and individuals in the RT group demonstrated improved functional ambulation post intervention.
|