4.3 Article

Is Mental Practice an Effective Adjunct Therapeutic Strategy for Upper Limb Motor Restoration After Stroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CNS & NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS-DRUG TARGETS
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 567-575

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL
DOI: 10.2174/1871527314666150429112702

关键词

Hemiparesis; mental practice; physical practice; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stroke is one of the most common conditions requiring rehabilitation, and its motor impairments are a major cause of permanent disability. Hemiparesis is observed by 80% of the patients after acute stroke. Neuroimaging studies showed that real and imagined movements have similarities regarding brain activation, supplying evidence that those similarities are based on the same process. Within this context, the combination of mental practice (MP) with physical and occupational therapy appears to be a natural complement based on neurorehabilitation concepts. Our study seeks to investigate if MP for stroke rehabilitation of upper limbs is an effective adjunct therapy. PubMed (Medline), ISI knowledge (Institute for Scientific Information) and SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library) were terminated on 20 February 2015. Data were collected on variables as follows: sample size, type of supervision, configuration of mental practice, setting the physical practice (intensity, number of sets and repetitions, duration of contractions, rest interval between sets, weekly and total duration), measures of sensorimotor deficits used in the main studies and significant results. Random effects models were used that take into account the variance within and between studies. Seven articles were selected. As there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MP vs control), showed a -0.6 (95% CI: -1.27 to 0.04), for upper limb motor restoration after stroke. The present meta-analysis concluded that MP is not effective as adjunct therapeutic strategy for upper limb motor restoration after stroke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据