Park 2015.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | RCT Setting: South Korea | |
| Participants | Inclusion criteria for participation were as follows: (1) left hemiparesis with onset duration > 6 months; (2) patient with unilateral neglect (> 6.3 mm deviation of the true centre of the line in the line bisection test); (3) cognition (> 23 points on the Korean version of Mini‐Mental Status Examination); (4) no hemianopsia or apraxia; and (5) imagination ability (average score < 3 in the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire) Age, years, mean (SD): intervention = 61.5 (5.1), control = 63.6 (6.0) Sex (men/women): intervention = 8/7, control = 6/9 Hemisphere damaged: right Time since stroke, months: intervention = 6.8 (0.9), control = 6.9 (1.0) | |
| Interventions | Participants received a mental practice intervention or usual care. During mental practice, experimental group (EG) participants mentally practised positioning and movement of the left upper limb as intensively as possible in a repetitive fashion. EG participants sat comfortably and leaned back against the back rest with feet on the floor and imagined the scene while listening to the voice of the researcher for 10 minutes with eyes closed. Contents of mental practice were to pick up a baseball, a pencil, and a coin at the centre of a body using the left hand, respectively, then move them into a basket lying on the left side. Verbal feedback provided by participants assured correct execution of imagery tasks. Each task was repeated up to 10 times per session. At the beginning of each task, break time was given to patients to induce relaxation and concentration internally on the left arm. EG participants received mental practice for additional 10 minutes (5 days a week for 4 weeks) | |
| Outcomes |
All taken immediately post intervention with no longer‐term follow‐up |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Based on a computer‐generated randomisation programme by a research assistant under the blind condition |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No detail given |
| Blinding of participants | High risk | No detail given |
| Blinding of personnel | High risk | No detail given |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | All clinical measures were administered by the blinded assessor, but no detail was given |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No incomplete data apparent |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Outcomes reported equally |
| Other bias | Low risk | Nothing obvious |