Skip to main content
. 2010 Jun 16;2010(6):CD006331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006331.pub2

Yozbatiran 2006

Methods Controlled clinical trial with alternate allocation
Participants Country: Turkey Setting: acute inpatient medical care at a univeristy hospital 36 stroke patients (18 intervention group, 18 control group) Age: intervention group mean 69.5 years (SD 14), control group mean 66.7 years (SD 11.2) Intervention group: 15 females 3 males; control group 6 females 12 males Days since stroke: 9.5 days (SD 3.6) intervention group; 9.8 days (SD 5.9) control group Inclusion criteria: first stroke, in an acute inpatient setting Exclusion criteria: potentially fatal heart arrhythmias, prior stroke with residual motor deficits, lower motor neuron lesion of the impaired extremity, uncontrolled hypertension, significant orthopedic or chronic pain conditions
Interventions Control group: 1 hour per day of neurodevelopment exercise for 10 days Intervention group: 1 hour per day of neurodevelopment exercise for 10 days plus received additional electrical stimulation of wrist and finger extensors for 1 hour per day
Outcomes Outcome measures: recorded at baseline and post intervention Kinesthesia Position sense Hand function test Hand movement scale
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation? High risk Quote: "Controlled Clinical trial with alternate allocation" Quote: "Thirty six acute stroke subjects were assigned in ranked order"
Allocation concealment? High risk Alternate allocation was not concealed
Blinding? All outcomes High risk Quote "The following parameters were recorded at initial assessment and at discharge by the same experienced physiotherapist working with neurological patients" No indication of blinding
Incomplete outcome data addressed? All outcomes Low risk Quote: "There were no drop outs in the study"
Free of selective reporting? Low risk It is clear that the published reports include all of the study's pre‐specified outcomes
Free of other bias? Low risk The study appears to be free of other sources of bias; some differences at baseline but these were in favor of the control group