Modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke: Results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

Physical Therapy

Volumn 88, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 333-340

  Page, Stephen J ^a,b,c   Levine, Peter ^a,d   Leonard, Anthony ^e   Szaflarski, Jerzy P ^e   Kissela, Brett M ^c,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Drake Center   (United States)

^c University of Cincinnati College of Medicine ^*

^d Drake Center

^e UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTION RESEARCH; ADULT; AGED; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; CHRONOTHERAPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KINESIOTHERAPY; MALE; MODIFIED CONSTRAINT INDUCED THERAPY; MOTOR ACTIVITY; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; OUTPATIENT CARE; PHYSIOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; REIMBURSEMENT; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STROKE; TREATMENT DURATION;

AGED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; EXERCISE THERAPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RESTRAINT, PHYSICAL; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 40049110114     PISSN: 00319023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20060029     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Carr J, Shephard R. Neurological Rehabilitation: Optimizing Motor Performance. Oxford, United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heineman; 1998.
2. de Pedro-Cuesta J, Widen-Holmquist L, Bach-y-Rita P. Evaluation of stroke rehabilitation by randomized controlled studies: a review. Acta Neurol Scand. 1992;86: 433-439.
3. Duncan PW. Synthesis of intervention trails to improve motor recovery following stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997;3:1-20.
4. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Wagenaar RC. Therapy impact on functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: a critical review of the literature. Physiotherapy. 1999;13: 457-470.
5. Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int J Rehabil Med. 1986;8:69-73.
6. Jorgenson HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou H, et al. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke, part II: time course of recovery. The Copenhangen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:406-412.
7. Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:347-354.
8. Miltner W, Bauder H, Sommer M, et al. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on patients with chronic motor deficits after stroke: a replication. Stroke. 1999;30:586-592.
9. van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, et al. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 1999;30:2369-2375.
10. Taub E. Movement in nonhuman primates deprived of somatosensory feedback. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1976;4:335-374.
11. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al; EXCITE Investigators. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2095-2104.
12. Siegert RJ, Lord S, Porter K. Constraint-induced movement therapy: time for a little restraint? Clin Rehabil. 2004;18: 110-114.
13. Blanton S, Wolf SL. An application of upper extremity constraint-induced movement therapy in a patient with subacute stroke. Phys Ther. 1999;79:847-853.
14. Page SJ, Levine P, Sisto S, et al. Stroke patients' and therapists' opinions of constraint-induced movement therapy. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:55-60.
15. Sterr A, Elbert T, Berthold I, et al. Longer versus shorter daily constraint-induced movement therapy of chronic hemiparesis: an exploratory study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1374-1377.
16. Pierce SR, Gallagher KG, Schaumburg SW, et al. Home forced use in an outpatient rehabilitation program for adults with hemiplegia: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17:214-219.
17. Page SJ, Sisto SA, Johnston MV, et al. Modified constraint induced therapy in subacute stroke: a case study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:286-290.
18. Page SJ, Sisto SA, Levine P. Modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81: 870-875.
19. Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard AC. Modified constraint-induced therapy in acute stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005; 19:27-32.
20. Page SJ, Sisto SA, Johnston MV, et al. Modified constraint induced therapy: a randomized, feasibility and efficacy study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38:583-590.
21. Page SJ, Sisto SA, Johnston MV, Levine P. Modified constraint-induced therapy after subacute stroke: a preliminary study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16: 223-228.
22. Page SJ, Sisto SA, Levine P, McGrath R. Efficacy of modified constraint-induced therapy in chronic stroke: a single blinded randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:14-18.
23. Szaflarski J, Page SJ, Kissela B, et al. Use-dependent cortical reorganization after modified constraint-induced therapy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1052-1058.
24. Teng EL, Chui HC. The Modified Mini-Mental State Exam. J Clin Psychiatry. 1987;48:314-318.
25. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67: 206-207.
26. Van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:110-113.
27. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. 1981;4:483-492.
28. Van der Lee JH, De Groot V, Beckerman H, et al. The intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Action Research Arm Test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:14-19.
29. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, et al. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient, I: a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975; 7:13-31.
30. Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63: 1606-1610.
31. Di Fabio RP, Badke RB. Relationship of sensory organization to balance function in patients with hemiplegia. Phys Ther. 1990;70:542-548.
32. Van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol D, et al. Clinimetric properties of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2004; 35:1-5.
33. Voss DE, Ionta MK, Myers BJ. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Patterns and Techniques. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Harper & Row Publishers Inc; 1985.
34. Lord J, Hall K. Neuromuscular reeducation versus traditional programs for stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986;67:88-91.
35. Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Blanton S, et al. Methods for a multisite randomized trial to investigate the effect of constraint-induced movement therapy in improving upper-extremity function among adults recovering from a cerebrovascular stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17: 137-152.
36. Page SJ, Elovic E, Levine P, Sisto SA. Modified constraint-induced therapy and botulinum toxin A: a promising combination. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:76-80.
37. Page SJ, Levine P. Back from the brink: electromyography-triggered stimulation combined with modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:27-31.
38. Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8:69-73.
39. Jorgenson HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou H, et al. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke, part II: time course of recovery. The Copenhangen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:406-412.
40. Classen J, Liepert J, Wise SP, et al. Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol. 1998;79:1117-123.
41. Butefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzler P, Mauritz KH. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci. 1995;130:59-68.