Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMorris, J.
dc.contributor.authorvan Wijck, Frederike
dc.contributor.authorJoice, S.
dc.contributor.authorOgston, S. A.
dc.contributor.authorCole, I.
dc.contributor.authorMacWalter, R. S.
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-29T21:44:45Z
dc.date.available2018-06-29T21:44:45Z
dc.date.issued2008-07
dc.identifierER553
dc.identifier.citationMorris, J., van Wijck, F., Joice, S., Ogston, S., Cole, I. & MacWalter, R. (2008) A Comparison of Bilateral and Unilateral Upper-Limb Task Training in Early Poststroke Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 89, , pp. 1237-1245,
dc.identifier.issn39993
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.039
dc.identifier.urihttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/553
dc.description.abstractMorris JH, van Wijck F, Joice S, Ogston SA, Cole I, MacWalter RS. A comparison of bilateral and unilateral upper-limb task training in early poststroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Objective: To compare the effects of bilateral task training with unilateral task training on upper-limb outcomes in early poststroke rehabilitation. Design: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial, with outcome assessments at baseline, postintervention (6wk), and follow-up (18wk). Setting: Inpatient acute and rehabilitation hospitals. Participants: Patients were randomized to receive bilateral training (n=56) or unilateral training (n=50) at 2 to 4 weeks poststroke onset. Intervention: Supervised bilateral or unilateral training for 20 minutes on weekdays over 6 weeks using a standardized program. Main Outcome Measures: Upper-limb outcomes were assessed by Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Rivermead Motor Assessment upper-limb scale, and Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT). Secondary measures included the Modified Barthel Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Nottingham Health Profile. All assessment was conducted by a blinded assessor. Results: No significant differences were found in short-term improvement (0-6wk) on any measure (P>.05). For overall improvement (0-18wk), the only significant between-group difference was a change in the 9HPT (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0-0.1; P=.05) and ARAT pinch section (95% CI, 0.3-5.6; P=.03), which was lower for the bilateral training group. Baseline severity significantly influenced improvement in all upper-limb outcomes (P<.05), but this was irrespective of the treatment group. Conclusions: Bilateral training was no more effective than unilateral training, and in terms of overall improvement in dexterity, the bilateral training group improved significantly less. Intervention timing, task characteristics, dose, and intensity of training may have influenced the results and are therefore areas for future investigation. 2008 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
dc.format.extent1237-1245
dc.relation.ispartofArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
dc.subjectCerebrovascular accident
dc.subjectMotor activity
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trial
dc.subjectRehabilitation
dc.subjectUpper extremity
dc.titleA Comparison of Bilateral and Unilateral Upper-Limb Task Training in Early Poststroke Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
dc.typearticle
dcterms.accessRightsrestricted
dc.description.facultysch_phy
dc.description.referencetext1. Nakayama H, Jorgenson HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:394-8. 2. Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton Hewer R. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med 1986;8:69-73. 3. Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E, Sdring KM, Wyller TB, Laake K. Association between impairments, self-care ability and social activities 1 year after stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1999;21:372-7. 4. Winstein CJ, Rose DK, Tan SM, Lewthwaite R, Chui HC, Azen SP. A randomized controlled comparison of upper-extremity rehabilitation strategies in acute stroke: a pilot study of immediate and long-term outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:620-8. 5. Mudie MH, Matyas TA. Upper extremity retraining following stroke: effects of bilateral practice. J Neurol Rehabil 1996;10:167-84. 6. Mudie MH, Matyas TA. Can simultaneous bilateral movement involve the undamaged hemisphere in reconstruction of neural networks damaged by stroke? Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:23-37. 7. Whitall J, McCombe Waller S, Silver KH, Macko RF. Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke [published erratum in: Stroke 2007;38:e22]. Stroke 2000;10:2390-5. 8. Cauraugh JH, Kim S. Two coupled motor recovery protocols are better than one: electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation and bilateral movements. Stroke 2002;33:1589-94. 9. Stinear JW, Byblow WD. Rhythmic bilateral movement training modulates corticomotor excitability and enhances upper limb motricity poststroke: a pilot study. J Clin Neurophysiol 2004;21:124-31. 10. Swinnen SP. Intermanual coordination: from behavioural principles to neural-network interactions. Nat Rev Neurosci 2002;3:348-59. 11. Kelso JA, Southard DL, Goodman D. On the nature of human interlimb coordination. Science 1979;203:1029-31. 12. Cunningham CL, Stoykov ME, Walter CB. Bilateral facilitation of motor control in chronic hemiplegia. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2002;110:321-37. 13. Harris-Love ML, McCombe Waller S, Whitall J. Exploiting interlimb coupling to improve paretic arm reaching performance in people with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2131-7. 14. Luft AR, McCombe Waller S, Whitall J, et al. Repetitive bilateral arm training and motor cortex activation in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial [published erratum in: JAMA 2004; 292:2470]. JAMA 2004;292:1853-61. 15. Parry RH, Lincoln NB, Vass CD. Effect of severity of arm impairment on response to additional physiotherapy early after stroke. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:187-98. 16. Wyller TB, Holmen J, Laake P, Laake K. Correlates of subjective well-being in stroke patients. Stroke 1998;29:363-7. 17. Penta M, Tesio L, Arnould C, Zancan A, Thonnard J. The ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in chronic stroke patients: Rasch-based validation and relationship to upper limb impairment. Stroke 2001;32:1627-34. 18. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther 1985; 65:175-80. 19. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res 1981;4:483-92. 20. Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, Kim IH, di Bella P, Johnson G. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil 2005;19:404-11. 21. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-8. 22. Lincoln N, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy 1979;65:48-51. 23. Adams SA, Ashburn A, Pickering RM, Taylor D. The scalability of the Rivermead Motor Assessment in acute stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1997;11:42-51. 24. Heller A, Wade DT, Wood VA, Sunderland A, Hewer RL, Ward E. Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery over the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987;50:714-9. 25. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:703-9. 26. Hunt SM, McEwen J. The development of a subjective health indicator. Sociol Health Illn 1980;2:231-46. 27. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361-70. 28. Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C. Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 1991;337:1521-6. 29. Hanlon RE. Motor learning following unilateral stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:811-5. 30. Winstein C. Motor learning considerations in stroke rehabilitation. In: Duncan P, Badke M, editors. Stroke rehabilitation: the recovery of motor control. Chicago: Year Book Medical; 1987. p 109-34. 31. Van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Devill WL, Bouter LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke 1999;30:2369-75. 32. McDowd JM, Filion DL, Pohl PS, Richards LG, Stiers W. Attentional abilities and functional outcomes following stroke. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:P45-53. 33. Platz T, Bock S, Prass K. Reduced skilfulness of arm motor behaviour among motor stroke patients with good clinical recovery: does it indicate reduced automaticity? Can it be improved by unilateral or bilateral training? A kinematic motion analysis study. Neuropsychologia 2001;39:687-98. 34. Liepert J, Bauder H, Wolfgang HR, Miltner WH, Taub E, Weiller C. Treatment-induced cortical reorganization after stroke in humans. Stroke 2000;31:1210-6. 35. Feydy A, Carlier R, Roby-Brami A, et al. Longitudinal study of motor recovery after stroke: recruitment and focusing of brain activation. Stroke 2002;33:1610-7. 36. Cauraugh JH, Summers JJ. Neural plasticity and bilateral movements: a rehabilitation approach for chronic stroke. Prog Neurobiol 2005;75:309-20. 37. Tanji J, Okano K, Sato KC. Neuronal activity in cortical motor areas related to ipsilateral, contralateral, and bilateral digit movements of the monkey. J Neurophysiol 1988;60:325-43. 38. Feys H, Weerdt W, Nuyens G, van de Winckel A, Selz B, Kiekens C. Predicting motor recovery of the upper limb after stroke rehabilitation: value of a clinical examination. Physiother Res Int 2000;5:1-18. 39. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2001. 40. Taub E, Uswatte G, King DK, Morris D, Crago JE, Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke 2006;37:1045-9.
dc.description.volume89
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.039
dc.description.ispublishedpub
dc.description.eprintid553
rioxxterms.typearticle
qmu.authorvan Wijck, Frederike
dc.description.statuspub
dc.description.number7


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record