Comparison of Bobath based and movement science based treatment for stroke: a randomised controlled trial. Effectiveness of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral task training for arm during the subacute phase after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Effectiveness of an intensive outpatient rehabilitation program for postacute stroke patients. Circuit class therapy versus individual physiotherapy sessions during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a controlled trial. Effect of a therapeutic intervention for the hemiplegic upper limb in the acute phase after stroke: a single-blind, randomized, controlled multicenter trial. Stroke treatment: comparison of integrated behavioral-physical therapy vs traditional physical therapy programs. Facilitation of sensory and motor recovery by thermal intervention for the hemiplegic upper limb in acute stroke patients: a single-blind randomized clinical trial. The effects of bilateral arm training on motor control and functional performance in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study. Exercises for paretic upper limb after stroke: a combined virtual-reality and telemedicine approach.
Bobath based (BB) and movement science based (MSB) physiotherapy interventions are widely used for patients after stroke. There is little evidence to suggest which is most effective. This single-blind randomised controlled trial evaluated the effect of these treatments on movement abilities and functional independence.
                A total of 120 patients admitted to a stroke rehabilitation ward were randomised into two treatment groups to receive either BB or MSB treatment. Primary outcome measures were the Rivermead Motor Assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. Secondary measures assessed functional independence, walking speed, arm function, muscle tone, and sensation. Measures were performed by a blinded assessor at baseline, and then at 1, 3, and 6 months after baseline. Analysis of serial measurements was performed to compare outcomes between the groups by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) and inserting AUC values into Mann-Whitney U tests.
                Comparison between groups showed no significant difference for any outcome measures. Significance values for the Rivermead Motor Assessment ranged from p = 0.23 to p = 0.97 and for the Motor Assessment Scale from p = 0.29 to p = 0.87.
                There were no significant differences in movement abilities or functional independence between patients receiving a BB or an MSB intervention. Therefore the study did not show that one approach was more effective than the other in the treatment of stroke patients. To evaluate the effect of an arm training programme combining repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral tasks for people in the subacute phase after stroke.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                Inpatient functional rehabilitation unit.
                Forty-one people who had had a stroke, in the subacute phase, receiving conventional arm occupational and physical therapy, were randomized to an experimental group (n=20) and a control group (n=21).
                In addition to the usual arm therapy in the rehabilitation unit, the experimental group received an arm therapy programme (15-20 45-min sessions) based on repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral tasks. The control group received additional usual arm therapy of a similar duration and frequency to the experimental treatment.
                The effect of the programme was judged on the basis of: (1) arm impairments (motor function, grip strength, gross and fine manual dexterity and motor co-ordination), (2) arm disabilities in tasks related to daily activities, and (3) functional independence in activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL).
                Although both experimental and control groups of participants improved similarly during the study period, the statistical analyses did not show any difference between the groups at the end of the treatment for the different dependent variables evaluated: (1) arm impairments: p = 0.43-0.79; (2) arm disabilities: p = 0.16-0.90; and (3) functional independence: p = 0.63 and 0.90.
                An arm training programme based on repetition of unilateral and symmetrical bilateral practice did not reduce impairment and disabilities nor improve functional outcomes in the subacute phase after stroke more than the usual therapy. The effectiveness of ongoing rehabilitation services for postacute stroke survivors is poorly documented. We designed a randomized control, single-blinded study to demonstrate the effectiveness of intensive outpatient therapy. The treatment intervention consisted of 1 hr each of physical and occupational therapy, four times per week, for 12 wk; therapy focused on neuromuscular facilitation and functional tasks. All subjects were screened before the therapies and after 3 mo and 9 mo. Forty-nine stroke survivors, who were at least l yr (mean, 2.9 yr) poststroke, were randomized with two treated patients to each control (no treatment supplied). All patients had received inpatient rehabilitation at the time of their acute stroke, but no patient had any ongoing therapy within the last 6 mo. The outcome measures included the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Brunnstrom stages of motor recovery, timed mobility tasks, and the Jebson hand evaluation. We also evaluated the level of depression, self-esteem, and socialization. The treated patients demonstrated an improvement of 6.6 points over the 3 mo of therapy compared with only 1.5 points in the control group in the FIM motor score transformed using Rasch analysis. The change from time 0 to 3 mo was significant in the treated group but not in the controls. Treated patients maintained their gains at the 9-mo follow-up, and controls lost ground. The treated group improved in terms of socialization and self-esteem as evidenced by a lower Sickness Impact Profile, whereas the controls tended to get worse. There was a trend toward less depression, but this did not reach a P = 0.05 level of significance. This study demonstrates that significant functional gains can still be attained in the postacute stroke survivor, despite prior inpatient rehabilitation services. To compare the effectiveness of circuit class therapy and individual physiotherapy (PT) sessions in improving walking ability and functional balance for people recovering from stroke.
                Nonrandomized, single-blind controlled trial.
                Medical rehabilitation ward of a rehabilitation hospital.
                Sixty-eight persons receiving inpatient rehabilitation after a stroke.
                Subjects received group circuit class therapy or individual treatment sessions as the sole method of PT service delivery for the duration of their inpatient stay.
                Five-meter walk test (5MWT), two-minute walk test (2MWT), and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) measured 4 weeks after admission. Secondary outcome measures included the Iowa Level of Assistance Scale, Motor Assessment Scale upper-limb items, and patient satisfaction. Measures were taken on admission and 4 weeks later.
                Subjects in both groups showed significant improvements between admission and week 4 in all primary outcome measures. There were no significant between group differences in the primary outcome measures at week 4 (5MWT mean difference, .07m/s; 2MWT mean difference, 1.8m; BBS mean difference, 3.9 points). A significantly higher proportion of subjects in the circuit class therapy group were able to walk independently at discharge (P=.01) and were satisfied with the amount of therapy received (P=.007).
                Circuit class therapy appeared as effective as individual PT sessions for this sample of subjects receiving inpatient rehabilitation poststroke. Favorable results for circuit classes in terms of increased walking independence and patient satisfaction suggest this model of service delivery warrants further investigation. Arm function recovery is notoriously poor in stroke patients. The effect of treatment modalities, particularly those directed at improving upper limb function, has been studied primarily in chronic stroke patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a specific therapeutic intervention on arm function in the acute phase after stroke.
                In a single-blind, randomized, controlled multicenter trial, 100 consecutive patients were allocated to either an experimental group that received an additional treatment of sensorimotor stimulation or to a control group. The intervention was applied for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated for level of impairment (Brunnström-Fugl-Meyer test) and disability (Action Research Arm test, Barthel Index) before, midway, and after the intervention period and at follow-up 6 and 12 months after stroke.
                Patients in the experimental group performed better on the Brunnström-Fugl-Meyer test than those in the control group throughout the study period, but differences were significant only at follow-up. Results on the Action Research Arm test and Barthel Index revealed no effect at the level of disability. The effect of the therapy was attributed to the repetitive stimulation of muscle activity. The treatment was most effective in patients with a severe motor deficit and hemianopia or hemi-inattention. No adverse effects due to the intervention were found.
                Adding a specific intervention during the acute phase after stroke improved motor recovery, which was apparent 1 year later. These results emphasize the potential beneficial effect of therapeutic interventions for the arm. This was a controlled study of the efficacy of two forms of therapy on upper limb functions of hemiparetic patients--one heavily behavioral and the other based on Bobath therapeutic exercises. It arose from an earlier pilot study comparing EMG biofeedback with physical therapy from which it was concluded that both the elapsed time since the acute stroke and the severity of residual disability were particularly important factors. Of 29 patients included and randomly assigned to one or the other heavily systematized therapies, 18 were classified as having early-severe and 11 as late-mild conditions. Multiple function tests by a "blinded" special technician in another location revealed that overall both forms of therapy obtained worthwhile clinical and statistical improvement, which was maintained at nine-month recheck testing; but there was no statistically significant superiority of one therapy over the other under the very specific circumstances of the research design. Ease of delivering care and other socioeconomic considerations become important factors in choosing either or both of these methods. Thermal stimulation (TS) is commonly used in orthopedic rehabilitation, but the role of TS in the facilitation of sensorimotor recovery in hemiplegic patients remains unknown. This study addressed the issue of TS intervention in the facilitation of functional outcomes.
                Forty-six stroke survivors were randomly assigned to standard rehabilitation treatment and standard treatment plus TS (30 minutes daily for 6 weeks). Twenty-nine patients completed the experiment. Six measures, including Brunnstrom stage, modified motor assessment scale, grasping strength, angles of wrist extension and flexion, sensation by monofilament, and muscle tone by modified Ashworth scale, were performed weekly to evaluate sensory and motor functional outcomes.
                The performance of Brunnstrom stage and wrist extension and sensation were improved significantly after TS intervention. Recovery rates of 6 measures after TS were significantly higher than those of the control, except for grasping. Similar muscle tones were found in both groups.
                TS on the paretic hand significantly enhances the recovery of several aspects of sensory and motor functions in hemiplegic stroke patients. Most studies of bilateral arm training (BAT) did not employ a randomized controlled trial design and involved very limited functional training tasks.
                Compare the effects of BAT with control intervention (CI) on motor control and motor performance of the upper extremity and also functional gains in patients with chronic stroke.
                . This 2-group randomized controlled trial with pretreatment and posttreatment measures enrolled 33 stroke patients (mean age = 53.85 years) 6 to 67 months after onset of a first stroke. They received either a BAT program concentrating on both upper extremities moving simultaneously in functional tasks by symmetric patterns or CI (control treatment) for 2 hours on weekdays for 3 weeks. Outcome measures included kinematic analyses assessing motor control strategies for unilateral and bimanual reaching and clinical measures involving the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) of motor-impairment severity and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and the Motor Activity Log (MAL) evaluating functional ability.
                After treatment, the BAT group showed better temporal and spatial efficiency during unilateral and bilateral tasks and less online error correction only during the bilateral task than the control group. The BAT group showed a significantly greater improvement in the FMA than the control group but not in the FIM and MAL.
                Relative to CI, BAT improved the spatiotemporal control of the affected arm in both bilateral and unilateral tasks, decreased online corrections to perform bilateral tasks, and reduced motor impairment. These findings support the use of BAT to improve motor control and motor function of the affected upper limb in stroke patients. Telerehabilitation enables a remotely controlled programme to be used to treat motor deficits in post-stroke patients. The effects of this telerehabilitation approach were compared with traditional motor rehabilitation methods.
                Randomized single-blind controlled trial.
                A total of 36 patients with mild arm motor impairments due to ischaemic stroke in the region of the middle cerebral artery.
                The experimental treatment was a virtual reality-based system delivered via the Internet, which provided motor tasks to the patients from a remote rehabilitation facility. The control group underwent traditional physical therapy for the upper limb. Both treatments were of 4 weeks duration. All patients were assessed one month prior to therapy, at the commencement and termination of therapies and one month post-therapy, with the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity, the ABILHAND and the Ashworth scales.
                Both rehabilitative therapies significantly improved all outcome scores after treatment, but only the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity scale showed differences in the comparison between groups.
                Both strategies were effective, but the experimental approach induced better outcomes in motor performance. These results may favour early discharge from hospital sustained by a telerehabilitation programme, with potential beneficial effects on the use of available resources.
There is evidence that physiotherapy intervention, using a mix of components from different approaches, is significantly more effective than no treatment or placebo control in the recovery of functional independence following stroke. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that any one physiotherapy approach is more effective in promoting recovery of lower limb function or postural control following stroke than any other approach. We recommend that future research should concentrate on investigating the effectiveness of clearly described individual techniques and task-specific treatments, regardless of their historical or philosophical origin.