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.

Motor imagery for gait rehabilitation after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Motor imagery (MI) is defined as a mentally rehearsed task in which movement is imagined but is not performed. The approach includes repetitive imagined body movements or rehearsing imagined acts to improve motor performance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the treatment effects of MI for enhancing ability to walk among people following stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group registry, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases. We also searched trial registries and reference lists. The last searches were conducted on 24 February 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using MI alone or associated with action observation or physical practice to improve gait in individuals after stroke. The critical outcome was the ability to walk, assessed using either a continuous variable (walking speed) or a dichotomous variable (dependence on personal assistance). Important outcomes included walking endurance, motor function, functional mobility, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials according to pre-defined inclusion criteria, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. The review authors contacted the study authors for clarification and missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies, involving a total of 762 participants. Participants were in the acute, subacute, or chronic stages of stroke, and had a mean age ranging from 50 to 78 years. All participants presented at least some gait deficit. All studies compared MI training versus other therapies. Most of the included studies used MI associated with physical practice in the experimental groups. The treatment time for the experimental groups ranged from two to eight weeks. There was a high risk of bias for at least one assessed domain in 20 of the 21 included studies. Regarding our critical outcome, there was very low-certainty evidence that MI was more beneficial for improving gait (walking speed) compared to other therapies at the end of the treatment (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.81; P = 0.02; six studies; 191 participants; I² = 38%). We did not include the outcome of dependence on personal assistance in the meta-analysis, because only one study provided information regarding the number of participants that became dependent or independent after interventions. For our important outcomes, there was very low-certainty evidence that MI was no more beneficial than other interventions for improving motor function (pooled mean difference (MD) 2.24, 95% CI -1.20 to 5.69; P = 0.20; three studies; 130 participants; I² = 87%) and functional mobility at the end of the treatment (pooled SMD 0.55, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.56; P = 0.09; four studies; 116 participants; I² = 64.2%). No adverse events were observed in those studies that reported this outcome (seven studies). We were unable to pool data regarding walking endurance and all other outcomes at follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence regarding the short-term benefits of MI on walking speed in individuals who have had a stroke, compared to other therapies. Evidence was insufficient to estimate the effect of MI on the dependence on personal assistance and walking endurance. Compared with other therapies, the evidence indicates that MI does not improve motor function and functional mobility after stroke (very low-certainty evidence). Evidence was also insufficient to estimate the effect of MI on gait, motor function, and functional mobility after stroke compared to placebo or no intervention. Motor Imagery and other therapies used for gait rehabilitation after stroke do not appear to cause significant adverse events.

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.