Saposnik 2010
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Recruited from a subacute rehabilitation facility in Toronto, Canada 22 participants: 11 intervention, 11 control Inclusion criteria: 18 to 85 years old with first time ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke within the last 6 months, Chedoke McMaster scale (UE) score of > 3 in the arm or hand Exclusion criteria: unable to follow instructions, pre‐stroke Modified Rankin Score of ≥ 2, medically unstable or with uncontrolled hypertension, severe illness with life expectancy of < 3 months, unstable angina, recent MI (within 3 months), history of seizures or epilepsy, participating in another clinical trial involving an investigational drug or physical therapy, any condition that might put the patient at risk (for example, known shoulder subluxation) Mean age: intervention group 55 years, control group 67 years 64% male Stroke details: 45% right hemiparesis Timing post stroke: intervention group mean (SD) 27 (16) days, control group 23 (9) days |
|
| Interventions | Virtual reality intervention: participants used the Nintendo Wii gaming console playing 'Wii sports' and 'Cooking Mama' Control intervention: leisure activities including cards, bingo and jenga Sessions were 60 minutes for 8 sessions (8 hours total) |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes recorded at baseline, post‐intervention and at 1 month Upper limb function and activity outcomes (arm): abbreviated version of the Wolf Motor Function Test Upper limb function and activity outcomes (hand): Box and Block test, Grip strength (kg) Participation restriction and quality of life: Stroke Impact Scale (hand function, composite function, perception of recovery) Adverse events reported Other outcomes: therapy time |
|
| Notes | — | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Participants were randomly allocated using a basic computer random number generator |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Unclear |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blind |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Some attrition was reported. Outcomes were calculated based on the number of participants and there was no reporting of imputation of data. Intention‐to‐treat analysis was completed |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Reports on all measures reported in the study protocol paper |