Evidence Hub

Evidence-based arm rehabilitation--a systematic review of the literature

Platz T

Der Nervenarzt, 2003

Abstract

Based on a systematic MEDLINE search and informal sources, 40 references were identified that evaluate training therapy or neuromuscular electric stimulation for arm paresis after stroke and describe either a systematic review, meta-analysis, randomised controlled trial, or controlled cohort study. The evidence was grouped into three areas of interest: comparison of physiotherapy schools, effects of intensity of training, and efficacy of specific arm rehabilitation techniques. The only physiotherapy school with evidence of superior efficacy was the task-oriented 'motor relearning programme'. Higher intensities of motor rehabilitation can accelerate motor recovery. Various training techniques with demonstrated efficacy are available for specific patient subgroups: arm ability training for mildly affected patients with reduced efficiency of motor control, constrained-induced movement therapy for patients with partial functional deficits and learned nonuse of the affected arm, and repetitive sensorimotor training techniques, EMG-biofeedback, functional electrical stimulation, and robot-assisted training for patients with severe arm paresis.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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