Trial name or title | Comparative efficacy research of robot‐assisted therapy with and without constraint‐induced therapy in stroke rehabilitation: does the combined therapy improve outcomes compared with monotherapy? |
Methods | RCT with factorial assignment |
Participants | Country: Taiwan Participants: estimated enrolment n = 80 Inclusion criteria: aged between 20 to 80 years; unilateral first‐ever stroke; 6 months from onset; initial upper extremity FMA score of 20 to 56; minimal motor criteria to receive constraint‐induced therapy (i.e. ≥ 100 wrist extension and ≥ 100 extension at the thumb and any other 2 digits); MAS ≤ 3 of the affected upper extremity; no upper limb fracture within the last 3 months; Mini‐Mental State Examination ≥ 24 points; written informed consent Exclusion criteria: major medical problems or poor physical condition that would interfere with participation; excessive pain in any joint that might limit participation |
Interventions | Experimental group 1: distributed constraint‐induced therapy (placement of the hand in a mitt for 6 hours/day and intensive training of the affected upper limb in functional tasks for 1.5 hours/weekday over 4 weeks) Control group (active): dose‐matched control therapy for 1.5 hours/weekday over 4 weeks Experimental group 2: robot‐assisted therapy (ArmeoSpring) for 1.5 hours/weekday over 4 weeks Experimental group 3: robot‐assisted therapy (ArmeoSpring) for 1.5 hours/weekday over 2 weeks plus distributed constraint‐induced therapy for 1.5 hours/weekday over 2 weeks |
Outcomes | Outcomes will be collected at baseline and at 2 and 4 weeks Primary outcomes:
Secondary outcomes:
|
Starting date | August 2013 |
Contact information | Keh‐chung Lin, ScD; School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taiwan Yi‐shiung Horng, PhD; Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital Taipei Branch |
Notes |