Action observation for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

Technology-Dependent Rehabilitation Involving Action Observation and Movement Imagery for Adults with Stroke: Can It Work? Feasibility of Self-Led Therapy for Upper Limb Rehabilitation after Stroke

BACKGROUND

Motor (re)learning via technology-dependent therapy has the potential to complement traditional therapies available to older adults living with stroke after hospital discharge and increase therapy dose. To date, little is known about the feasibility of technology-dependent therapy in a home setting for this population.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a technology-dependent therapy that provides mental and physical training for older adults with stroke and assess feasibility. Specifically we ask, "Can it work"?

DESIGN

Single group repeated measures.

METHODS

13 participants, aged 18 years and over, were recruited over a six-month period. All participants had mild upper limb impairment following a stoke and were no longer receiving intensive rehabilitation. All participants received 18 days of technology-dependent therapy in their own home. Information was gathered on recruitment and retention, usability, and suitability of outcome measures.

RESULTS

11 participants completed the study. The recruitment rate (number recruited/number canvassed; 10.7%) suggests 1907 participants would need to be canvassed to recruit the necessary sample size (n = 204) for a definitive trial designed to provide 90% power at 5% level of significance to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 5.7 points on the Action Research Arm Test. The usability of the application was rated as exceptional on the System Usability Scale. Effectiveness cannot be determined from this study; however, there was a trend for improvement in measures of upper limb function and emotional well-being. Limitations. The study was limited by a relatively small sample size and lack of control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated proof of concept of a technology-dependent therapy for upper limb rehabilitation following stroke. The data suggest a definitive trial is feasible, additional strategies to improve recruitment should be considered. Outcome measures aligned with the residual motor function of participants are required.

Action observation for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

BACKGROUND

Action observation (AO) is a physical rehabilitation approach that facilitates the occurrence of neural plasticity through the activation of the mirror-neural system, promoting motor recovery in people with stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether AO enhances upper limb motor function in people with stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 18 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (18 May 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 May 2021), Embase (1974 to 18 May 2021), and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AO alone or associated with physical practice in adults after stroke. The primary outcome was upper limb (arm and hand) motor function. Secondary outcomes included dependence on activities of daily living (ADL), motor performance, cortical activation, quality of life, and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials according to the predefined inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using RoB 1, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The reviews authors contacted trial authors for clarification and missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials involving 574 individuals. Most trials provided AO followed by the practice of motor actions. Training varied between 1 day and 8 weeks of therapy, 10 to 90 minutes per session. The time of AO ranged from 1 minute to 10 minutes for each motor action, task or movement observed. The total number of motor actions ranged from 1 to 3. Control comparisons included sham observation, physical therapy, and functional activity practice.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

AO improved arm function (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.61; 11 trials, 373 participants; low-certainty evidence); and improved hand function (mean difference (MD) 2.76, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.49; 5 trials, 178 participants; low-certainty evidence).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

AO did not improve ADL performance (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.08; 7 trials, 302 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or quality of life (MD 5.52, 95% CI -30.74 to 41.78; 2 trials, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool the other secondary outcomes (motor performance and cortical activation). Only two trials reported adverse events without significant adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of AO are small for arm function compared to any control group; for hand function the effects are large, but not clinically significant. For both, the certainty of evidence is low. There is no evidence of benefit or detriment from AO on ADL and quality of life of people with stroke; however, the certainty of evidence is very low. As such, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited because it will likely change with future research.

Action observation for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

BACKGROUND

Action observation (AO) is a physical rehabilitation approach that facilitates the occurrence of neural plasticity through the activation of the mirror-neural system, promoting motor recovery in people with stroke.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether action observation enhances motor function and upper limb motor performance and cortical activation in people with stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 4 September 2017), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (24 October 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 24 October 2017), Embase (1974 to 24 October 2017) and five additional databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AO, alone or associated with physical practice in adults after stroke. The primary outcome was upper limb motor function. Secondary outcomes included dependence on activities of daily living (ADL), motor performance, cortical activation, quality of life, and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials according to the pre-defined inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. The reviews authors contacted trial authors for clarification and missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials involving 478 individuals. A number of trials showed a high risk of bias and others an unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting. The quality of the evidence was 'low' for most of the outcomes and 'moderate' for hand function, according to the GRADE system. In most of the studies, AO was followed by some form of physical activity.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

the impact of AO on arm function showed a small significant effect (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60; 8 studies; 314 participants; low-quality evidence); and a large significant effect (mean difference (MD) 2.90, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.66; 3 studies; 132 participants; moderate-quality evidence) on hand function.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

there was a large significant effect for ADL outcome (SMD 0.86, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.61; 4 studies, 226 participants; low-quality evidence). We were unable to pool other secondary outcomes to extract the evidence. Only two studies reported adverse effects without significant adverse AO events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence that AO is beneficial in improving upper limb motor function and dependence in activities of daily living (ADL) in people with stroke, when compared with any control group; however, we considered the quality of the evidence to be low. We considered the effect of AO on hand function to be large, but it does not appear to be clinically relevant, although we considered the quality of the evidence as moderate. As such, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited because it will likely change with future research.