Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr 1;2019(4):CD004149. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004149.pub3

Taub 2011.

Methods Design: single‐centre randomised controlled trial with cross‐over
Comparison groups reported by study authors: CIMT vs usual care
Country: USA
Other: no protocol or trial registration identified
Groups defined by Cochrane authors:
  • Intervention: hybrid CIMT

  • Comparison: low dose


Comparison defined by Cochrane authors and used in meta‐analysis: CIMT vs low dose
Participants Inclusion criteria
(a) Stroke in prenatal, perinatal or very early antenatal period confirmed by MRI
(b) Congenital hemiparesis
(c) Aged 2 to 6 years
(d) No serious or recurring medical complications
(e) Living within 40 miles of clinic or willing to temporarily locate to the area
Exclusion criteria
(a) Score of > 2.5 on the Pediatric Motor Activity Log for the more affected limb
(b) Uncontrolled seizures
(c) Botulinum toxin‐A injection in the upper limb or other spasticity medications within 3 months of intervention
(d) Fixed contractures in the upper limb (4 or more on the Ashworth scale)
(e) Previous CIMT or forced use therapy
Participants: 22 children with congenital hemiparesis
Randomisation method: children were assigned randomly in blocks of 4 ‐ no further details provided
Dropouts: n = 2: comparison n = 2 (dropped out prior to intervention, n = 1 seizures, n = 1 indefinite hospitalisation)
Number of participants who received intended treatment: n = 20 (91%): intervention n = 10, comparison n = 10
Number of participants who were analysed: total sample: n = 20; mean age = 3.65 years SD 1.42 years (calculated by review authors); 4 males, 16 females; 6 left hemiplegia, 14 right hemiplegia; MACS not reported; GMFCS not reported
Intervention group: n = 10; mean age = 4 years SD 1.2 years; 2 males, 8 females; 2 left hemiplegia, 8 right hemiplegia; MACS not reported; GMFCS not reported
Comparison group: n = 10; mean age = 3.3 years SD 1.6 years; 2 males, 8 females; 4 left hemiplegia, 6 right hemiplegia; MACS not reported; GMFCS not reported
Interventions Intervention group (hybrid CIMT)
Treatment dosage
Length: 3 weeks (15 consecutive weekdays) ‐ 13 days of CIMT and 2 days of bimanual activities
Duration: 6 hours per day
Frequency: each week day
Total dose of therapy time: 90 hours
Description
Type of restraint device: long arm cast including hand and fingers to above elbow (univalved for skin check only)
Hours per day restraint worn: 24 hours
Treatment environment: home and community
Individual or group: individual
Therapy provider: a therapist (profession unspecified)
Models of practice: shaping ‐ the more affected arm was trained intensively by a behavioral procedure termed ‘‘shaping ‐ where the child is required to improve performance, usually in small steps, at each iteration of a movement to obtain a reward (enthusiastic praise, encouraging exclamations, and other signs of approval by the therapist)"
At the beginning of the fourteenth day of treatment, the cast was removed and the child received training in using the more affected arm in bilateral activities for the final 2 days of treatment
Throughout, a ‘‘transfer package,’’ was used to induce transfer of therapeutic gains from the treatment period to usual life activities
Home programme: written list of training tasks given to caregiver to complete over weekends. Caregivers were trained in the shaping of movements.Home programme provided post treatment to encourage continuation of training – weekly phone calls from therapist carried out for first month post treatment
Comparison group (low dose)
Length: 3 weeks (although can presume they continued for the 6‐month control period)
Duration: 1‐2 hours
Frequency: 1‐2 sessions per week
Total dose of therapy time: not reported
Description
Treatment environment: not specified
Individual or group: not specified
Therapy provider: occupational therapist or physiotherapist
Models of practice: not stated
Home programme: not stated
Outcomes Assessment time points: baseline. PMAL collected daily during treatment. Immediately following intervention (following 15 weekdays of treatment); 4 weeks post baseline; 6 months post baseline (2 weeks to 4 months postintervention)
Primary outcome measure
  • Not stated


Outcome measures
  • Pediatric Arm Function Test (6 point scale, % score) (Uswatte 2012b)

  • Pediatric Motor Activity Log ‐ Revised (Uswatte 2012) (range 0 to 5 points)

  • Inventory of New Motor Activities and Programs Instrument (INMA). Reason for exclusion: No evidence of validity or reliability in CP

  • Passive and active range of motion (rated on a 4 point scale for 20 movements). Reason for exclusion: Used a modified form with no evidence for reliability or validity

  • Modified Ashworth Scale (outcomes not reported). Reason for exclusion: Outcomes not reported and unable to be obtained from the authors

Notes Additional information sought from authors: authors contacted but declined to provide MAS data and PAFT data (to enable pooling with a second study)
Fundings sources: National Institutes of Health (5R13NS040925‐09), the National Institutes of Health Office of Rare Diseases Research, the Child NeurologySociety, and the Children’s Hemiplegia and Stroke Association, Grant HD040692 from the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research of NICHD.
Study author declaration: the authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "Children were assigned randomly in blocks of 4"
Comment: insufficient information given to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: not described. Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Comment: blinding of participants and personnel was not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Self‐reported outcomes High risk Comment: blinding for self‐reported outcomes including PMAL was not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Objectively observed outcomes Unclear risk Comment: not described. Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Quote: "Two children assigned to the control group dropped out before treatment began, 1 because of a seizure and 1 because of an indefinite hospitalization"
Comment: amount of, and reasons for, missing data is not likely to affect outcomes. Completion of an intention‐to‐treat analysis was not specified
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Comment: no study protocol located. Insufficient information to permit judgement