Treatment Effects of Upper Limb Action Observation Therapy and Mirror Therapy on Rehabilitation Outcomes after Subacute Stroke: A Pilot Study.
Journal
Behavioural neurology
ISSN: 1875-8584
Titre abrégé: Behav Neurol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8914585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
07
2019
revised:
18
11
2019
accepted:
12
12
2019
entrez:
8
5
2020
pubmed:
8
5
2020
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Action observation therapy and mirror therapy, two promising rehabilitation strategies, are aimed at enhancing the motor learning and functional improvement of stroke patients through different patterns of visual feedback and observation. This study investigated and compared the treatment effects of the action observation therapy, mirror therapy, and active control intervention on motor and functional outcomes of stroke patients. Twenty-one patients with subacute stroke were recruited in this study. All patients were randomly assigned to the action observation therapy, mirror therapy, or active control intervention for 3 weeks. Outcome measures were conducted at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and secondary outcomes included the Box and Block Test, Functional Independence Measure, and Stroke Impact Scale. Descriptive analyses and the number of patients whose change score achieved minimal clinically important difference were reported. Both the action observation therapy and active control intervention showed similar improvements on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Box and Block Test, and Stroke Impact Scale. Moreover, the action observation therapy had a greater improvement on the Functional Independence Measure than the other 2 groups did. However, the mirror therapy group gained the least improvements on the outcomes. The preliminary results found that the patients in the action observation therapy and active control intervention groups had comparable benefits, suggesting that the 2 treatments might be used as an alternative to each other. A further large-scale study with at least 20 patients in each group to validate the study findings is needed. This trial is registered with NCT02871700.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Action observation therapy and mirror therapy, two promising rehabilitation strategies, are aimed at enhancing the motor learning and functional improvement of stroke patients through different patterns of visual feedback and observation.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study investigated and compared the treatment effects of the action observation therapy, mirror therapy, and active control intervention on motor and functional outcomes of stroke patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-one patients with subacute stroke were recruited in this study. All patients were randomly assigned to the action observation therapy, mirror therapy, or active control intervention for 3 weeks. Outcome measures were conducted at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and secondary outcomes included the Box and Block Test, Functional Independence Measure, and Stroke Impact Scale. Descriptive analyses and the number of patients whose change score achieved minimal clinically important difference were reported.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both the action observation therapy and active control intervention showed similar improvements on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Box and Block Test, and Stroke Impact Scale. Moreover, the action observation therapy had a greater improvement on the Functional Independence Measure than the other 2 groups did. However, the mirror therapy group gained the least improvements on the outcomes.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The preliminary results found that the patients in the action observation therapy and active control intervention groups had comparable benefits, suggesting that the 2 treatments might be used as an alternative to each other. A further large-scale study with at least 20 patients in each group to validate the study findings is needed. This trial is registered with NCT02871700.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32377266
doi: 10.1155/2020/6250524
pmc: PMC7199557
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02871700']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6250524Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Yu-Wei Hsieh et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Apr;27(4):314-24
pubmed: 22960240
Disabil Rehabil. 2018 Jun;40(12):1443-1451
pubmed: 28322596
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;72(4):473-9
pubmed: 11909906
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Oct;29(9):807-17
pubmed: 25613984
Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2035-6
pubmed: 10376620
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 11;7:CD008449
pubmed: 29993119
Curr Biol. 2010 Apr 27;20(8):R353-4
pubmed: 21749952
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jun;94(6):1023-30
pubmed: 23419791
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Jul;39(15):1503-1514
pubmed: 28478736
J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Jun;27(6):1809-11
pubmed: 26180326
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Physiother Theory Pract. 2016;32(2):83-91
pubmed: 26756623
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 May;23(4):336-42
pubmed: 18984830
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:457538
pubmed: 24967372
Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(26):2135-49
pubmed: 19903124
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Mar-Apr;25(3):223-33
pubmed: 21051765
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Aug;97(8):572-577
pubmed: 29521681
Stroke. 2009 Apr;40(4):1386-91
pubmed: 19228851
J Hand Ther. 2011 Apr-Jun;24(2):170-8; quiz 179
pubmed: 21106347
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Jul;84(7):950-63
pubmed: 12881816
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(6):563-71
pubmed: 20848369
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Jan;87(1):32-9
pubmed: 16401435
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 Jun;48(2):313-8
pubmed: 22522432
J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Sep;55(9):922-8
pubmed: 12393081
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Mar;11(3):209
pubmed: 22341029
Nature. 1995 Oct 12;377(6549):489-90
pubmed: 7566144
Trials. 2017 Oct 4;18(1):459
pubmed: 28978349
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Mar 12;14:124
pubmed: 24620739
Int Arch Med. 2013 Oct 17;6(1):41
pubmed: 24134862
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016 Jun;52(3):271-8
pubmed: 26923644
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Dec;96(12):2137-44
pubmed: 26260019
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Jun;26(5):456-62
pubmed: 22235059
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 May;29(4):349-61
pubmed: 25160567
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2000;14(1):73-6
pubmed: 11228952
Lancet. 2008 May 10;371(9624):1612-23
pubmed: 18468545
Int Psychogeriatr. 2012 Apr;24(4):651-8
pubmed: 22152127
Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;92(6):791-8
pubmed: 22282773
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):435-40
pubmed: 19261767
J Phys Ther Sci. 2017 Mar;29(3):523-526
pubmed: 28356646
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Apr 28;369(1644):20130185
pubmed: 24778380
J Neurophysiol. 2002 Mar;87(3):1329-35
pubmed: 11877507
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Mar-Apr;23(3):209-17
pubmed: 19074686
Stroke. 2001 Jun;32(6):1279-84
pubmed: 11387487
Trials. 2011 May 03;12:106
pubmed: 21539749
Eur J Neurosci. 2001 Jan;13(2):400-4
pubmed: 11168545
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2015;33(4):421-34
pubmed: 26409402
QJM. 2013 Jan;106(1):11-25
pubmed: 23019591
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010 Dec;46(4):517-23
pubmed: 20414184
Neuroimage. 2007;36 Suppl 2:T164-73
pubmed: 17499164