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

Detailed Search Results

Effects of interactive visual feedback training on post-stroke pusher syndrome: a pilot randomized controlled study [with consumer summary]
Yang Y-R, Chen Y-H, Chang H-C, Chan R-C, Wei S-H, Wang R-Y
Clinical Rehabilitation 2015 Oct;29(10):987-993
clinical trial
7/10 [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: No; 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: We investigated the effects of a computer-generated interactive visual feedback training program on the recovery from pusher syndrome in stroke patients. DESIGN: Assessor-blinded, pilot randomized controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12 stroke patients with pusher syndrome were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 7, computer-generated interactive visual feedback training) or control group (n = 5, mirror visual feedback training). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The scale for contraversive pushing for severity of pusher syndrome, the Berg Balance Scale for balance performance, and the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale for motor control were the outcome measures. Patients were assessed pre- and posttraining. RESULTS: A comparison of pre- and posttraining assessment results revealed that both training programs led to the following significant changes: decreased severity of pusher syndrome scores (decreases of 4.0 +/- 1.1 and 1.4 +/- 1.0 in the experimental and control groups, respectively); improved balance scores (increases of 14.7 +/- 4.3 and 7.2 +/- 1.6 in the experimental and control groups, respectively); and higher scores for lower extremity motor control (increases of 8.4 +/- 2.2 and 5.6 +/- 3.3 in the experimental and control groups, respectively). Furthermore, the computer-generated interactive visual feedback training program produced significantly better outcomes in the improvement of pusher syndrome (p < 0.01) and balance (p < 0.05) compared with the mirror visual feedback training program. CONCLUSIONS: Although both training programs were beneficial, the computer-generated interactive visual feedback training program more effectively aided recovery from pusher syndrome compared with mirror visual feedback training.

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