Lin 2007.
| Methods | Randomisation by random number table stratified by side of stroke, allocation by sealed envelopes Blinded outcome assessor Post‐treatment withdrawals: 6% Multicentre, outpatients | |
| Participants | Taiwan Recruited from rehabilitation departments of 3 medical centres 32 participants: 17 intervention, 15 control Inclusion criteria: cerebrovascular accident > 12 months; Brunnstrom Stage > 3 on arm section; amount of use < 2.5 on the MAL, no serious cognitive deficits, no excessive spasticity in any joints of the affected upper limb Exclusion criteria: history of stroke or other neurological, neuromuscular or orthopaedic disease Mean age (SD): intervention group: 57.11 (18.3) years, control group: 58.77 (15.5) years % women: intervention group 35%, control group: 33% Stroke details: ischaemic or haemorrhagic; 53% with right hemiparesis in treatment group, 60% with right hemiparesis in control group Time since stroke, mean (SD): intervention group 15.97 (3.46) months, control group 16.61 (2.89) months |
|
| Interventions | mCIMT versus control mCIMT: ADL activity with the affected arm Amount of restraint: 6 hours per day Anatomical region restraint: hand Control: strength, balance, fine motor dexterity training, functional task practice, stretching/weight‐bearing by the affected arm Session duration: 2 hours per day, 5 days per week, 3 weeks for each group |
|
| Outcomes | Measures pre/post treatment
|
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Using a table of random numbers, 10 randomly selected numbers in the range from 1 to 20 were assigned to [the] modified constraint‐induced movement therapy group and the remaining 10 numbers to [the] traditional rehabilitation group" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "Patients with left stroke were randomized using two sets of sealed envelopes and those with right stroke using another two sets of sealed envelopes. For each two sets of envelopes, one unmarked set of 20 envelopes were presented to a patient to choose one. The unmarked envelopes contained a single sheet of paper with a number ranging from 1 to 20. In the second set of envelopes, which were marked with numbers from 1 to 20, modified constraint‐induced movement therapy or traditional rehabilitation sheets were sealed" Comment: insufficient information to permit judgment |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "Two occupational therapists blind to group allocation provided the evaluations" |
| Incomplete outcome data addressed? (Post‐treatment) | Low risk | 2/17 missing participants from the control group (due to unstable medical condition) |