Harmsen 2015.
| Methods | Randomized clinical trial | |
| Participants | Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic of Rijndam Rehabilitation Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands 37 participants: 18 experimental group; 19 control group Inclusion criteria: Brunnstrom score for upper‐extremity function between III and VI, a home‐dwelling status, and at least 6 months poststroke Exclusion criteria: presence of neglect, comorbidities that influence voluntary upper‐extremity function, or multiple strokes Mean (SD) age: experimental group: 57 (10.4) years, control group: 60 (8.8) years Stroke details: experimental group: 13 ischemic, 5 hemorrhagic; control group: 12 ischemic, 7 hemorrhagic Stroke phase: chronic |
|
| Interventions | Experimental group (mirror therapy–based action observation): sets of affected‐arm reaching movements, alternated with periods of observation. Participants observed mirrored video tapes (the video screen was positioned in the midsagittal plane) of reaching movements performed by their unaffected arm Control group: sets of affected‐arm reaching movements, alternated with periods of observation. Participants observed static photographs of landscapes (the video screen was positioned in the midsagittal plane) Participants trained for 1 day: 3 minutes of action observation, 30 repetitions of reaching, 1 minute of action observation, 20 repetitions of reaching, 1 minute of action observation, 20 repetitions of reaching, and 1 last minute of action observation |
|
| Outcomes | Outcome recorded at baseline and post‐intervention Movement time of reaching: accelerometer |
|
| Notes | ‐ | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer‐generated random code using blocks of 20 participants |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Use of sealed envelopes. Authors did not report if envelopes were opaque or sequentially numbered |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No blinding, but the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Authors did not report if there was blinding of outcome assessment |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No withdraw was reported. There was no loss of data after intervention. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The study protocol is available and the outcomes were reported in accordance with what has been proposed DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN40128145 |
| Other bias | Low risk | |