Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Constraint‐induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients

This is not the most recent version

Abstract

available in

Background

In stroke patients, upper limb paresis affects many activities of daily life. Reducing disability is therefore a major aim of rehabilitation programmes for hemiparetic patients. Constraint‐induced movement therapy (CIMT) is a current approach to stroke rehabilitation that implies the forced use and the massed practice of the affected arm by restraining the unaffected arm.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of CIMT, modified CIMT (mCIMT), or forced use (FU) for arm management in hemiparetic patients.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched June 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2008), EMBASE (1980 to June 2008), CINAHL (1982 to June 2008), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (June 2008).

Selection criteria

Randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs (qRCTs) comparing CIMT, mCIMT or FU with other rehabilitative techniques, or none.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently classified the identified trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was disability.

Main results

We included 19 studies involving 619 participants. The trials included participants who had some residual motor power of the paretic arm, the potential for further motor recovery and with limited pain or spasticity, but tended to use the limb little if at all. Only five studies had adequate allocation concealment. The majority of studies were underpowered (median number of included patients was 15) and we cannot rule out small‐trial bias. Six trials (184 patients) assessed disability immediately after the intervention, indicating a significant standard mean difference (SMD) of 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.65. For the most frequently reported outcome, arm motor function (11 studies involving 373 patients), the SMD was 0.72 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.12). There were only two studies that explored disability improvement after a few months of follow up and found no significant difference, SMD ‐0.07 (95% CI ‐0.53 to 0.40).

Authors' conclusions

CIMT is a multifaceted intervention: the restriction to the normal limb is accompanied by a certain amount of exercise of the appropriate quality. It is associated with a moderate reduction in disability assessed at the end of the treatment period. However, for disability measured some months after the end of treatment, there was no evidence of persisting benefit. Further randomised trials, with larger sample sizes and longer follow up, are justified.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Plain language summary

Constraint‐induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients

Paralysis of an arm after a stroke makes arm movements, such as reaching, grasping, and manipulating an object difficult. In turn, this causes many difficulties in activities of daily life, such as bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting. Constraint‐induced movement therapy (CIMT) is a type of rehabilitation therapy in which the patient is obliged to use the paralysed arm. The normal arm and hand are prevented from moving with a glove and a special arm rest. We found 19 studies involving 619 participants, which assessed whether CIMT could reduce disability in stroke patients with a paralysed arm. Patients were included in the studies if they had good potential for recovery but tended not to use the arm. At the end of the treatment period, compared with exercise without constraint, CIMT improved the patient’s ability to manage activities of daily living, but there was no evidence that this improvement was maintained over the next six months. Further larger trials to assess whether CIMT provides lasting benefit are justified.