Display options
Share it on

Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2011;11(6):1-58. Epub 2011 Nov 01.

Constraint-induced movement therapy for rehabilitation of arm dysfunction after stroke in adults: an evidence-based analysis.

Ontario health technology assessment series

[No authors listed]

PMID: 23074418 PMCID: PMC3377570

Abstract

PRIMARY OUTCOME: ARM MOTOR FUNCTION: Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) SECONDARY OUTCOME: ARM MOTOR IMPAIRMENT: Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMA)ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING (ADL): Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Chedoke Arm and Hand InventoryPERCEIVED MOTOR FUNCTION: Motor Activity Log (MAL) Amount of Use (AOU) and Quality of Movement (QOM) scales

QUALITY OF LIFE: Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: A significant difference was found in our primary outcome of arm motor function measured with the Action Research Arm Test in favour of CIMT compared with usual care delivered with the same intensity and duration. Significant differences were also found in three of the five secondary outcome measures including Arm Motor Impairment and Perceived Motor Function Amount of Use and Quality of Use. There was a nonsignificant effect found with the FIM score and the quality of life Stroke Impact Scale outcome measure. The nonsignificant effect found with the scale score and the quality of life score may be a factor of a nonresponsive outcome measure (FIM scale) and/or a type II statistical error from an inadequate sample size. The quality of evidence was moderate for arm motor function and low for all other outcome measures except quality of life, which was very low. Table 1:Summary of Results(*)OutcomeOutcome MeasureNumber of Studies (n)Mean Difference in Change scores CIMT vs. Usual Care [95% C.I.]ResultsGRADE Quality of EvidenceArm motor functionAction Research Arm Test4(43)13.6[8.7, 18.6]SignificantModerateArm motor impairmentFugl-Meyer Motor Assessment8(169)6.5[2.3, 10.7]SignificantLowActivities of daily livingFunctional Independence Measure4(128)3.6[-0.22, 7.4]NonsignificantLowSelf-reported amount of arm usePerceived Arm Motor Function (Amount of Use) Scale8(241)1.1[0.60, 1.7]SignificantLowSelf-reported quality of arm usePerceived Arm Motor Function (Quality of Use) Scale8(241)0.97[0.7, 1.3]SignificantLowQuality of lifeStroke Impact Scale2(66)3.9[-5.6, 13.5]NonsignificantVery Low*CI, Confidence Intervals; n, Sample Size.

References

  1. Health Technol Assess. 2008 Jul;12(30):iii, ix-x, 1-117 - PubMed
  2. Stroke. 2006 Apr;37(4):1045-9 - PubMed
  3. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Aug;88(8):964-70 - PubMed
  4. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001 Sep-Oct;38(5):583-90 - PubMed
  5. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jan;85(1):14-8 - PubMed
  6. Stroke. 2011 Jun;42(6):1787-94 - PubMed
  7. BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490 - PubMed
  8. Curr Opin Neurol. 2010 Dec;23(6):678-82 - PubMed
  9. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Apr;74(4):347-54 - PubMed
  10. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007 Sep-Oct;21(5):460-6 - PubMed
  11. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Sep;16(3):290-5 - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 2006 Nov 1;296(17):2095-104 - PubMed
  13. Neurosciences (Riyadh). 2004 Jan;9(1):24-9 - PubMed
  14. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD004433 - PubMed
  15. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1994 Fall;10(4):714-5 - PubMed
  16. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Mar;88(3):273-8 - PubMed
  17. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):441-8 - PubMed
  18. Phys Ther. 2008 Mar;88(3):333-40 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010 Dec;46(4):537-44 - PubMed
  20. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005 Mar;19(1):27-32 - PubMed
  21. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Mar;89(3):177-85 - PubMed
  22. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):11-9 - PubMed
  23. Clin Rehabil. 2008 Feb;22(2):112-24 - PubMed
  24. NeuroRehabilitation. 2006;21(2):147-56 - PubMed
  25. Clin Rehabil. 2007 Dec;21(12):1075-86 - PubMed

Publication Types