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