Disability and rehabilitation · 2024
Effects of mirror therapy with electrical stimulation for upper limb recovery in people with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pan Hong, Liu Tai Wa, Ng Shamay S M, Chen Pei Ming, Chung Raymond C K, Lam Stefanie S L, Li Carol S K, Chan Charles C C, Lai Charles W K, Ng Winnie W L, Tang Maria W S, Hui Elsie, Woo Jean
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To provide updated evidence about the effects of MT with ES for recovering upper extremities motor function in people with stroke.
METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were completed. Methodological quality was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: A total of 16 trials with 773 participants were included in this review. The results demonstrated that MT with ES was more effective than sham (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.89 [1.52-2.26]) and ES alone (SMD, 0.42 [0.11-0.73]) with low quality of evidence, or MT alone (SMD, 0.47[0.04-0.89]) with low quality of evidence for improving upper extremity motor control assessed using Fugl-Meyer Assessment. MT with ES had significant improvement of (MD, 6.47 [1.92-11.01]) the upper extremity gross gripping function assessed using the Action Research Arm Test compared with MT alone with low quality of evidence. MT combined with ES was more effective than sham group (SMD, 1.17 [0.42-1.93) for improving the ability to perform activities of daily living with low quality of evidence assessed using Motor Activity Log.
CONCLUSION: MT with ES may be effective in improving upper limb motor recovery in people with stroke.
METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were completed. Methodological quality was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS: A total of 16 trials with 773 participants were included in this review. The results demonstrated that MT with ES was more effective than sham (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.89 [1.52-2.26]) and ES alone (SMD, 0.42 [0.11-0.73]) with low quality of evidence, or MT alone (SMD, 0.47[0.04-0.89]) with low quality of evidence for improving upper extremity motor control assessed using Fugl-Meyer Assessment. MT with ES had significant improvement of (MD, 6.47 [1.92-11.01]) the upper extremity gross gripping function assessed using the Action Research Arm Test compared with MT alone with low quality of evidence. MT combined with ES was more effective than sham group (SMD, 1.17 [0.42-1.93) for improving the ability to perform activities of daily living with low quality of evidence assessed using Motor Activity Log.
CONCLUSION: MT with ES may be effective in improving upper limb motor recovery in people with stroke.