Skip to main content
. 2013 Dec 16;2013(12):CD010255. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub2

Carey 2007

Methods RCT
Participants Recruited from the community via advertising in a local paper and local stroke support group meetings in the USA
Inclusion criteria: more than 12 months poststroke, between 30 and 80 years old, satisfactory corrected vision to recognise the full tracking target and cursor movement, ≥ 90 degrees of passive extension‐flexion movement at the index finger metacarpophalangeal joint of the paretic hand (no contracture) and at least 10 degrees of active movement at this joint
Exclusion criteria: unable to undergo fMRI, pregnancy or claustrophobia
Age, years: intervention group (Track) mean = 65.9 (SD 7.4), intervention group (Move) mean = 67.4 (SD 11.8)
Gender: intervention group (Track) 90% male, intervention group (Move) 60% male
Time poststroke: intervention group (Track) mean 42.5 months (SD 24.3), intervention group (Move) mean 35.6 months (SD 26.1)
Interventions Both groups received telerehabilitation. The aim of the intervention was to practice finger and wrist movements. Training was completed on a laptop using customised tracking software without direct supervision by the therapist. Both groups performed 180 tracking trials per day for 10 days. Regular teleconferencing (mobile phone and Webcam operating over the Internet) occurred between therapist and participant
Telerehabilitation intervention (Track group): tracking software provided feedback and an accuracy score
Telerehabilitation intervention (Move group): tracking software showed a sweeping cursor representing movement, however did not provide the target or response or an accuracy score
Outcomes Timing of outcome assessment: baseline and post‐intervention
Measures: Box and Block test, Jebsen Taylor test, finger ROM, finger movement tracking test, fMRI
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes High risk Substantial loss of participants at follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No protocol available
Other bias High risk Small sample size and considerable differences between groups in mean values on some outcome measures at baseline, although these differences were not statistically significant