Evidence Hub

Combined action observation and motor imagery practice for upper limb recovery following stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lin D, Eaves DL, Franklin JD, Robinson JR, Binks JA, Emerson JR

Frontiers in neurology, 2025

336 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Optimal upper limb recovery requires high-dose physiotherapy; however, this essential component of rehabilitation is under-delivered. Mental practice represents an accessible and cost-effective adjunct to conventional therapy. We therefore evaluated the efficacy of an enhanced mental practice treatment (combined action observation and motor imagery, AO + MI) for promoting upper limb recovery post stroke.

Methods: Searching 10 databases, we identified 18 eligible studies (N = 336), comprising nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs). RCTs were meta-analyzed using upper limb function outcomes (Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity, FMA-UE; Action Research Arm Test, ARAT). Non-RCTs (not eligible for meta-analysis) were narratively synthesized using upper limb and neuroimaging outcomes.

Results: Seven RCTs reported FMA-UE scores (n = 189), where the standardized mean difference (SMD) for AO + MI treatments was moderate (SMD = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.13-1.04, p = 0.02). Two additional RCTs reported ARAT scores. Meta-analyzing the combined FMA-UE and ARAT scores (n = 239) revealed SMD = 0.70 (95%CI: 0.32-1.09, p = 0.003). No significant correlations existed between the pooled effect size and several moderators (age, time since stroke, intervention duration, control condition, outcome measure and AO + MI arrangement), indicating consistent AO + MI practice effects. Overall, AO + MI significantly improved upper limb…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 336 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free