Mirror therapy simultaneously combined with electrical stimulation for upper limb motor function recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness of simultaneous combination of mirror therapy and electrical stimulation in the recovery of upper limb motor function after stroke, compared with conventional therapy, mirror therapy or electrical stimulation isolated.

Data sources:

Articles published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central register of controlled trials and ScienceDirect up to July 2020.

Review methods:

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro tool. The RevMan 5.4 statistical software was used to obtain the meta-analysis, through the standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and to evaluate the risk of bias. The GRADE approach was employed to assess the certainty of evidence.

Results:

Eight articles were included in this systematic review, seven were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 314 participants were analyzed. The overall quality of the articles included in this review was good. There was no overall significant mean difference on upper limb motor function after stroke using the Upper-Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment by 1.56 (95% CI = –2.08, 5.20; P = 0.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and the Box and Block Test results by 1.39 (95% CI = –2.14, 4.92; P = 0.44; high-certainty evidence). There was overall significant difference in the Action Research Arm Test by 3.54 (95% CI = 0.18, 6.90; P = 0.04; high-certainty evidence).

Conclusion:

Direct scientific evidence about the effectiveness of the combined therapy of mirror therapy and electrical stimulation simultaneously for the improvement of the upper limb motor function after stroke is lacking. Further high-quality and well-designed research is needed.

Keywords

Electric stimulation mirror therapy physical therapy modalities rehabilitation stroke

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rothgangel

Braun

Winkens

, et al. Traditional and augmented reality mirror therapy for patients with chronic phantom limb pain (PACT study): results of a three-group, multicentre single-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2018; 32(12): 1591–1608.

Thieme

Morkisch

Mehrholz

, et al. Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 7: CD008449.

Zeng

Guo

, et al. Mirror therapy for motor function of the upper extremity in patients with stroke: a meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50(1): 8–15.

Chipchase

Schabrun

Hodges

PW.

Peripheral electrical stimulation to induce cortical plasticity: a systematic review of stimulus parameters. Clin Neurophysiol 2011;122(3):456–63.

Springer

Khamis

Effects of functional electrical stimulation on gait in people with multiple sclerosis – a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2017; 13: 4–12.

Vafadar

Côté

Archambault

PS.

Effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation in improving clinical outcomes in the upper arm following stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 729768.

Kafri

Laufer

Therapeutic effects of functional electrical stimulation on gait in individuals post-stroke. Ann Biomed Eng 2015; 43(2): 451–466.

Mathieson

Parsons

Kaplan

Combining functional electrical stimulation with mirror therapy for the upper limb in people with stroke. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med 2014; 26(1–2): 113–129.

Sullivan

Hedman

LD.

A home program of sensory and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with upper-limb task practice in a patient 5 years after a stroke. Phys Ther 2004; 84(11): 1045–1054.

10.

Hamzei

Läppchen

Glauche

, et al. Functional plasticity induced by mirror training: The mirror as the element connecting both hands to one hemisphere. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26(5): 484–496.

11.

Hutton

Catalá-López

Moher

The PRISMA statement extension for systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: PRISMA-NMA. Med Clin (Barc) 2016; 147(6): 262–266.

12.

Bhogal

Teasell

Foley

, et al. The PEDro scale provides a more comprehensive measure of methodological quality than the Jadad scale in stroke rehabilitation literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58(7): 668–673.

13.

Foley

Teasell

Bhogal

, et al. Stroke rehabilitation evidence-based review: methodology. Top Stroke Rehabil 2003; 10: 1–7.

14.

Higgins

JPT

Altman

Gøtzsche

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.

15.

Schünemann

Brożek

Guyatt

, et al. The GRADE Working Group. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook (2013, accesed 27 July 2020).

16.

Deeks

Higgins

Altman

DG.

Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv Cochrane B Ser 2019; 241–284.

17.

Lin

Huang

Chen

, et al. Combining afferent stimulation and mirror therapy for rehabilitating motor function, motor control, ambulation, and daily functions after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014; 28(2):153–162.

18.

Mathieson

Parsons

Kaplan

, et al. Combining functional electrical stimulation and mirror therapy for upper limb motor recovery following stroke: a randomised trial. Eur J Physiother 2018; 20(4): 244–249.

19.

Schick

Schlake

H-P

Kallusky

, et al. Synergy effects of combined multichannel EMG-triggered electrical stimulation and mirror therapy in subacute stroke patients with severe or very severe arm/hand paresis. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2017; 35(3): 319–332.

20.

Kim

Lee

Song

Effect of functional electrical stimulation with mirror therapy on upper extremity motor function in poststroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2014; 23(4): 655–661.

21.

Kim

Lee

BH.

Mirror therapy combined with biofeedback functional electrical stimulation for motor recovery of upper extremities after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Occup Ther Int 2014; 22(2): 51–60.

22.

Yun

Chun

Park

, et al. The synergic effects of mirror therapy and neuromuscular electrical stimulation for hand function in stroke patients. Ann Rehabil Med 2011; 35(3): 316–321.

23.

Nagapattinam

Babu

Kumar

, et al. Effect of task specific mirror therapy with functional electrical stimulation on upper limb function for subacute hemiplegia. Int J Physiother 2015; 2(5): 840–849.

24.

Lin

K-C

Chen

Y-T

Huang

P-C

, et al. Effect of mirror therapy combined with somatosensory stimulation on motor recovery and daily function in stroke patients: a pilot study. J Formos Med Assoc 2014; 113(7): 422–428.

25.

Fugl-Meyer

Jaasko

Leyman

, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 1975; 7(1): 13–31.

26.

Mathiowetz

Weber

Kashman

, et al. Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occup Ther J Res 1985; 5(1): 24–38.

27.

Rabadi

FM.

Comparison of the action research arm test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment as measures of upper-extremity motor weakness after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87(7): 962–966.

28.

Luo

Zhou

, et al. Synergistic effect of combined mirror therapy on upper extremity in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurol 2020; 11: 155.

29.

Meilink

Hemmen

Seelen

HAM

, et al. Impact of EMG-triggered neuromuscular stimulation of the wrist and finger extensors of the paretic hand after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Rehabil 2008; 22(4): 291–305.

30.

Yang

J-D

Liao

C-D

Huang

S-W

, et al. Effectiveness of electrical stimulation therapy in improving arm function after stroke: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33(8): 1286–1297.

31.

Morkisch

Thieme

Dohle

How to perform mirror therapy after stroke? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2019; 37(5): 421–435.

32.

Miot

HA.

Sample size in clinical and experimental trials. J Vasc Bras 2011; 10: 275–278.

33.

Page

Fulk

Boyne

Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther 2012; 92(6): 791–798.

34.

Chen

Hsueh

, et al. Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23(5): 435–440.

35.

Lang

Edwards

Birkenmeier

, et al. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89(9): 1693–1700.

36.

Chanubol

Wongphaet

Chavanich

, et al. Correlation between the action research arm test and the box and block test of upper extremity function in stroke patients. J Med Assoc Thail 2012; 95(4): 590–597.

37.

VanSant

AF.

The international classification of functioning, disability and health. Pediatr Phys Ther 2006; 18: 237.

38.

Stein

Fritsch

Robinson

, et al. Effects of electrical stimulation in spastic muscles after stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stroke 2015; 46(8): 2197–2205.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB