Piron 2009
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Study took place in Italy 36 participants: 18 intervention, 18 control Inclusion criteria: single ischaemic stroke in the MCA region with mild to intermediate arm motor impairment (Fugl Meyer UE score 30 to 55) Exclusion criteria: clinical evidence of cognitive impairment, apraxia (< 62 points on the 'De Renzi' test), neglect or language disturbance interfering with verbal comprehension (> 40 errors on the Token test) Mean (SD) age: intervention group 66 (8) years, control group 64 (8) years 58% male Stroke details: 44% right hemiparesis Timing post stroke: intervention group mean (SD) 15 (7) months, control group 12 (4) months |
|
| Interventions | Virtual reality intervention: the telerehabilitation program used 1 computer workstation at the participant's home and 1 at the rehabilitation hospital. The system used a 3D motion tracking system to record arm movements through a magnetic receiver into a virtual image. The participant moved a real object following the trajectory of a virtual object displayed on the screen in accordance with the requested virtual task. 5 virtual tasks comprising simple arm movements were devised for training Control intervention: specific exercises for the upper limb with progressive complexity. Started with control of isolated movements without postural control, then postural control including touching different targets and manipulating objects Sessions were 60 minutes, 5 times per week for 4 weeks (20 hours total) |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes recorded at baseline, post‐intervention and at 1 month Upper limb function and activity outcomes (arm): Fugl Meyer UE Scale Participation restriction and quality of life outcomes: Abilhand scale Other outcome measures: Modified Ashworth Scale |
|
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Personal correspondence with the author reports the use of a simple computer‐generated sequence |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Opaque, sequentially numbered envelopes |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blind |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | There were no missing data |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No other outcomes were collected |