Skip to main content
. 2015 Nov 7;2015(11):CD006876. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub4
Trial name or title Randomized trial of robotic rehabilitation, mirror therapy, and dose‐matched control intervention for upper‐limb rehabilitation in patients with chronic stroke: comparative efficacy and clinimetric study
Methods RCT with factorial assignment
Participants Country: Taiwan
Participants: estimated enrolment n = 100
Inclusion criteria: unilateral stroke; onset more than 6 months; written informed consent; initial scores on the upper extremity FMA score of 25 to 56 or 18 to 50; Mini‐Mental State Examination ≥ 24 points; no upper limb fracture in the last 3 months
Exclusion criteria: recurrent stroke or seizures during the intervention; serious or continuous pain on affected upper extremity; history of other neurological disease or severe orthopaedic condition
Interventions Experimental group 1: robotic rehabilitation combined functional electrical stimulation (5 to 10 minutes of warm‐up, 1 hour of robotic rehabilitation with combined functional electrical stimulation, and 15 to 20 minutes of functional‐activities training 5 days a week for 4 weeks)
Experimental group 2: mirror therapy (1 hour mirror therapy and 0.5 hour functional training per day, 5 days a week for 4 weeks); focuses on symmetrical bimanual movements and simultaneously observing the mirror visual feedback reflected by the unaffected upper extremity
Experimental group 3: robotic rehabilitation (5 to 10 minutes of warm‐up, 1 hour of robotic rehabilitation, and 15 to 20 minutes of functional‐activities training 5 days a week for 4 weeks)
Control group 1 (active): conventional rehabilitation (participants in this group received a structured protocol based on occupational therapy such as neurodevelopmental techniques and task‐oriented approach for 1.5 hours per day, 5 days a week for 4 weeks)
Control group 2 (placebo): like experimental group 1 but without any electrical current applied for 1.5 hours per day, 5 days a week for 4 weeks
Outcomes Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at 4, 8, 16, and 28 weeks
Primary outcomes:
  • FMA

  • MAS

  • FIM

  • movement smoothness (movement units)

  • trajectory smoothness (total displacement)

  • pre‐motor planning ability (percentage of peak velocity)

  • speed of motor planning (reaction time)

  • ARAT

  • MRC

  • Muscle tone (Myoton‐3)

  • amount of the impaired arm movement outside the laboratory (accelerometer)

  • produced force (peak velocity)

  • trunk‐related kinematic variables


Secondary outcomes:
  • MAL

  • ABILHAND questionnaire

  • SIS 3.0

  • Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale

  • revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment

  • FMA Sensory

  • oxidative stress

  • Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory

Starting date August 2011
Contact information Keh‐chung Lin, ScD; kehchunglin@ntu.edu.tw
Notes