Skip to main content
. 2010 Apr 14;2010(4):CD006432. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006432.pub2

Chang 2006

Methods Randomised cross‐over design Participants each performed 3 tasks in randomly presented order This study was not designed or presented as a traditional RCT
Participants 20 participants Inclusion criteria: CT or MRI imaging evidence of single‐hemisphere stroke, arm reaching ability (Fugl‐Meyer assessment > 30), no perceptual‐cognitive dysfunction which limits comprehension of experimental task, no severe concurrent medical problems, no other neurological or orthopaedic conditions affecting arm/trunk movements
Interventions Each participant performed 3 movement tasks: (1) reaching forward with affected limb (unilateral); (2) reaching forward with both limbs simultaneously (bilateral); (3) reaching forward with both limbs simultaneously + load applied to non‐affected upper limb (bilateral + load) Each movement condition performed for 5 trials with 5‐minute rest between each condition Typical experimental session lasted approximately 40 minutes There was no training period ‐ movement and outcome measurement occurred simultaneously Profession of individual(s) providing training unclear
Outcomes Secondary outcome: motor impairment: kinematics on completion of elbow flexion ‐ temporal outcomes: movement time, movement velocity, number of movement units and normalised jerk score of movement (movement time selected); spatial outcomes: elbow flexion‐extension range, shoulder flexion‐extension range and trunk linear line value (elbow range selected)
Notes Data are not available for the first phase only of this study, and it is therefore not included in any analyses The unilateral and bilateral conditions would have been a suitable comparison
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Allocation concealment? Unclear risk All participants completed training in each condition
Blinding of outcome assessor? Unclear risk Assessments completed at the same time as the training
Intention to treat analysis? Unclear risk Not stated
Baseline similarity Unclear risk Participants not separated into different groups