Loading…

Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review

Evaluation of how Motor Imagery and conventional therapy (physiotherapy or occupational therapy) compare to conventional therapy only in their effects on clinically relevant outcomes during rehabilitation of persons with stroke. Systematic review of the literature We conducted an electronic database...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 2008-03, Vol.5 (1), p.8-8, Article 8
Main Authors: Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea, Schuster, Corina, Puhan, Milo A, Siekierka, Ewa, Steurer, Johann
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b644t-f2e44ac483acef29569b9c9dcce4167528547d5149a54237f8d76825204f64213
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b644t-f2e44ac483acef29569b9c9dcce4167528547d5149a54237f8d76825204f64213
container_end_page 8
container_issue 1
container_start_page 8
container_title Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
container_volume 5
creator Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea
Schuster, Corina
Puhan, Milo A
Siekierka, Ewa
Steurer, Johann
description Evaluation of how Motor Imagery and conventional therapy (physiotherapy or occupational therapy) compare to conventional therapy only in their effects on clinically relevant outcomes during rehabilitation of persons with stroke. Systematic review of the literature We conducted an electronic database search in seven databases in August 2005 and also hand-searched the bibliographies of studies that we selected for the review. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all randomized controlled trials that compare the effects of conventional therapy plus Motor Imagery to those of only conventional therapy on stroke patients. The outcome measurements were: Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment upper extremity score (66 points) and Action Research Arm Test upper extremity score (57 points). Due to the high variability in the outcomes, we could not pool the data statistically. We identified four randomized controlled trials from Asia and North America. The quality of the included studies was poor to moderate. Two different Motor imagery techniques were used (three studies used audiotapes and one study had occupational therapists apply the intervention). Two studies found significant effects of Motor Imagery in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment: Differences between groups amounted to 11.0 (1.0 to 21.0) and 3.2 (-4 to 10.3) respectively and in the Action Research Arm Test 6.1 (-6.2 to 18.4) and 15.8 (0.5 to 31.0) respectively. One study did not find a significant effect in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment and Color trail Test (p = 0.28) but in the task-related outcomes (p > 0.001). Current evidence suggests that Motor imagery provides additional benefits to conventional physiotherapy or occupational therapy. However, larger and methodologically sounder studies should be conducted to assess the benefits of Motor imagery.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1743-0003-5-8
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_3287bb929c6548c2955de68d6483a1f1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A177386068</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3287bb929c6548c2955de68d6483a1f1</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A177386068</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b644t-f2e44ac483acef29569b9c9dcce4167528547d5149a54237f8d76825204f64213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhiNERT_gyBXlxC0l_rY5IKqqhUorcYGz5TjjrUsSL7a31f57HLIqXaGKk8cz42dez0xVvUXtOUKSf0CCkqZtW9KwRr6oTh7vL5_Yx9VpSnfFoC2jr6pjJAlFXIqTanXlnLfG7urg6jHkEGs_mjXEXe2nehNSblKO4SfUEW5N5wefTfZh-libOu1ShrFcbQnee3h4XR05MyR4sz_Pqh_XV98vvzarb19uLi9WTccpzY3DQKmxVBJjwWHFuOqUVb21UFQJhiWjomeIKsMoJsLJXnCJGW6p4xQjclbdLNw-mDu9iUVx3OlgvP7jCHGtTSyyBtAES9F1CivLGZW2FGM9cNnzuTpyM-vTwtpsuxF6C1OOZjiAHkYmf6vX4V5jLBQiogA-L4DOh2cAhxEbRj1PRs-T0UzLgni_1xDDry2krEefLAyDmSBskxYt5UxS9d9EpDhniMzE8yVxbUoT_ORCKV3GbHoYvQ0TOF_8F0gIInnL5wfN8sDGkFIE9_gB1Op50f6R_O5p2_5m7zeL_Aa9G82h</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19665138</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea ; Schuster, Corina ; Puhan, Milo A ; Siekierka, Ewa ; Steurer, Johann</creator><creatorcontrib>Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea ; Schuster, Corina ; Puhan, Milo A ; Siekierka, Ewa ; Steurer, Johann</creatorcontrib><description>Evaluation of how Motor Imagery and conventional therapy (physiotherapy or occupational therapy) compare to conventional therapy only in their effects on clinically relevant outcomes during rehabilitation of persons with stroke. Systematic review of the literature We conducted an electronic database search in seven databases in August 2005 and also hand-searched the bibliographies of studies that we selected for the review. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all randomized controlled trials that compare the effects of conventional therapy plus Motor Imagery to those of only conventional therapy on stroke patients. The outcome measurements were: Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment upper extremity score (66 points) and Action Research Arm Test upper extremity score (57 points). Due to the high variability in the outcomes, we could not pool the data statistically. We identified four randomized controlled trials from Asia and North America. The quality of the included studies was poor to moderate. Two different Motor imagery techniques were used (three studies used audiotapes and one study had occupational therapists apply the intervention). Two studies found significant effects of Motor Imagery in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment: Differences between groups amounted to 11.0 (1.0 to 21.0) and 3.2 (-4 to 10.3) respectively and in the Action Research Arm Test 6.1 (-6.2 to 18.4) and 15.8 (0.5 to 31.0) respectively. One study did not find a significant effect in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment and Color trail Test (p = 0.28) but in the task-related outcomes (p &gt; 0.001). Current evidence suggests that Motor imagery provides additional benefits to conventional physiotherapy or occupational therapy. However, larger and methodologically sounder studies should be conducted to assess the benefits of Motor imagery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1743-0003</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1743-0003</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-5-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18341687</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Care and treatment ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Imagery (Psychotherapy) - methods ; Imagination - physiology ; Movement - physiology ; Movement Disorders - physiopathology ; Movement Disorders - psychology ; Movement Disorders - rehabilitation ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Paresis - physiopathology ; Paresis - psychology ; Paresis - rehabilitation ; Physical therapy ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Review ; Stroke (Disease) ; Stroke - physiopathology ; Stroke - psychology ; Stroke Rehabilitation ; Therapeutics, Physiological ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2008-03, Vol.5 (1), p.8-8, Article 8</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2008 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2008 Zimmermann-Schlatter et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008 Zimmermann-Schlatter et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b644t-f2e44ac483acef29569b9c9dcce4167528547d5149a54237f8d76825204f64213</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b644t-f2e44ac483acef29569b9c9dcce4167528547d5149a54237f8d76825204f64213</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279137/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279137/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18341687$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuster, Corina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puhan, Milo A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siekierka, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steurer, Johann</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review</title><title>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</title><addtitle>J Neuroeng Rehabil</addtitle><description>Evaluation of how Motor Imagery and conventional therapy (physiotherapy or occupational therapy) compare to conventional therapy only in their effects on clinically relevant outcomes during rehabilitation of persons with stroke. Systematic review of the literature We conducted an electronic database search in seven databases in August 2005 and also hand-searched the bibliographies of studies that we selected for the review. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all randomized controlled trials that compare the effects of conventional therapy plus Motor Imagery to those of only conventional therapy on stroke patients. The outcome measurements were: Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment upper extremity score (66 points) and Action Research Arm Test upper extremity score (57 points). Due to the high variability in the outcomes, we could not pool the data statistically. We identified four randomized controlled trials from Asia and North America. The quality of the included studies was poor to moderate. Two different Motor imagery techniques were used (three studies used audiotapes and one study had occupational therapists apply the intervention). Two studies found significant effects of Motor Imagery in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment: Differences between groups amounted to 11.0 (1.0 to 21.0) and 3.2 (-4 to 10.3) respectively and in the Action Research Arm Test 6.1 (-6.2 to 18.4) and 15.8 (0.5 to 31.0) respectively. One study did not find a significant effect in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment and Color trail Test (p = 0.28) but in the task-related outcomes (p &gt; 0.001). Current evidence suggests that Motor imagery provides additional benefits to conventional physiotherapy or occupational therapy. However, larger and methodologically sounder studies should be conducted to assess the benefits of Motor imagery.</description><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imagery (Psychotherapy) - methods</subject><subject>Imagination - physiology</subject><subject>Movement - physiology</subject><subject>Movement Disorders - physiopathology</subject><subject>Movement Disorders - psychology</subject><subject>Movement Disorders - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Paresis - physiopathology</subject><subject>Paresis - psychology</subject><subject>Paresis - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Stroke (Disease)</subject><subject>Stroke - physiopathology</subject><subject>Stroke - psychology</subject><subject>Stroke Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Therapeutics, Physiological</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1743-0003</issn><issn>1743-0003</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhiNERT_gyBXlxC0l_rY5IKqqhUorcYGz5TjjrUsSL7a31f57HLIqXaGKk8cz42dez0xVvUXtOUKSf0CCkqZtW9KwRr6oTh7vL5_Yx9VpSnfFoC2jr6pjJAlFXIqTanXlnLfG7urg6jHkEGs_mjXEXe2nehNSblKO4SfUEW5N5wefTfZh-libOu1ShrFcbQnee3h4XR05MyR4sz_Pqh_XV98vvzarb19uLi9WTccpzY3DQKmxVBJjwWHFuOqUVb21UFQJhiWjomeIKsMoJsLJXnCJGW6p4xQjclbdLNw-mDu9iUVx3OlgvP7jCHGtTSyyBtAES9F1CivLGZW2FGM9cNnzuTpyM-vTwtpsuxF6C1OOZjiAHkYmf6vX4V5jLBQiogA-L4DOh2cAhxEbRj1PRs-T0UzLgni_1xDDry2krEefLAyDmSBskxYt5UxS9d9EpDhniMzE8yVxbUoT_ORCKV3GbHoYvQ0TOF_8F0gIInnL5wfN8sDGkFIE9_gB1Op50f6R_O5p2_5m7zeL_Aa9G82h</recordid><startdate>20080314</startdate><enddate>20080314</enddate><creator>Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea</creator><creator>Schuster, Corina</creator><creator>Puhan, Milo A</creator><creator>Siekierka, Ewa</creator><creator>Steurer, Johann</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080314</creationdate><title>Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review</title><author>Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea ; Schuster, Corina ; Puhan, Milo A ; Siekierka, Ewa ; Steurer, Johann</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b644t-f2e44ac483acef29569b9c9dcce4167528547d5149a54237f8d76825204f64213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imagery (Psychotherapy) - methods</topic><topic>Imagination - physiology</topic><topic>Movement - physiology</topic><topic>Movement Disorders - physiopathology</topic><topic>Movement Disorders - psychology</topic><topic>Movement Disorders - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Paresis - physiopathology</topic><topic>Paresis - psychology</topic><topic>Paresis - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Stroke (Disease)</topic><topic>Stroke - physiopathology</topic><topic>Stroke - psychology</topic><topic>Stroke Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Therapeutics, Physiological</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuster, Corina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puhan, Milo A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siekierka, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steurer, Johann</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zimmermann-Schlatter, Andrea</au><au>Schuster, Corina</au><au>Puhan, Milo A</au><au>Siekierka, Ewa</au><au>Steurer, Johann</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>J Neuroeng Rehabil</addtitle><date>2008-03-14</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>8</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>8-8</pages><artnum>8</artnum><issn>1743-0003</issn><eissn>1743-0003</eissn><abstract>Evaluation of how Motor Imagery and conventional therapy (physiotherapy or occupational therapy) compare to conventional therapy only in their effects on clinically relevant outcomes during rehabilitation of persons with stroke. Systematic review of the literature We conducted an electronic database search in seven databases in August 2005 and also hand-searched the bibliographies of studies that we selected for the review. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all randomized controlled trials that compare the effects of conventional therapy plus Motor Imagery to those of only conventional therapy on stroke patients. The outcome measurements were: Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment upper extremity score (66 points) and Action Research Arm Test upper extremity score (57 points). Due to the high variability in the outcomes, we could not pool the data statistically. We identified four randomized controlled trials from Asia and North America. The quality of the included studies was poor to moderate. Two different Motor imagery techniques were used (three studies used audiotapes and one study had occupational therapists apply the intervention). Two studies found significant effects of Motor Imagery in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment: Differences between groups amounted to 11.0 (1.0 to 21.0) and 3.2 (-4 to 10.3) respectively and in the Action Research Arm Test 6.1 (-6.2 to 18.4) and 15.8 (0.5 to 31.0) respectively. One study did not find a significant effect in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment and Color trail Test (p = 0.28) but in the task-related outcomes (p &gt; 0.001). Current evidence suggests that Motor imagery provides additional benefits to conventional physiotherapy or occupational therapy. However, larger and methodologically sounder studies should be conducted to assess the benefits of Motor imagery.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>18341687</pmid><doi>10.1186/1743-0003-5-8</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1743-0003
ispartof Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2008-03, Vol.5 (1), p.8-8, Article 8
issn 1743-0003
1743-0003
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_3287bb929c6548c2955de68d6483a1f1
source PubMed Central
subjects Care and treatment
Health aspects
Humans
Imagery (Psychotherapy) - methods
Imagination - physiology
Movement - physiology
Movement Disorders - physiopathology
Movement Disorders - psychology
Movement Disorders - rehabilitation
Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods
Paresis - physiopathology
Paresis - psychology
Paresis - rehabilitation
Physical therapy
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Review
Stroke (Disease)
Stroke - physiopathology
Stroke - psychology
Stroke Rehabilitation
Therapeutics, Physiological
Treatment Outcome
title Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T06%3A42%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20of%20motor%20imagery%20in%20post-stroke%20rehabilitation:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20neuroengineering%20and%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Zimmermann-Schlatter,%20Andrea&rft.date=2008-03-14&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=8&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=8-8&rft.artnum=8&rft.issn=1743-0003&rft.eissn=1743-0003&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1743-0003-5-8&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA177386068%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b644t-f2e44ac483acef29569b9c9dcce4167528547d5149a54237f8d76825204f64213%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19665138&rft_id=info:pmid/18341687&rft_galeid=A177386068&rfr_iscdi=true