Abstract
To review and synthesize existing evidence on the effect of mirror therapy (MT) on motor and functional recovery and the effect of unimanual and bimanual MT in individuals with subacute stroke. PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane, and Airiti Library were searched for relevant studies. Randomized and pilot randomized controlled trials comparing MT with sham MT or conventional therapy were included. Three researchers independently reviewed eligible studies for study design, participants' characteristics, intervention, and outcome measures and assessed study quality. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Fifteen studies with 546 participants were included. An overall effect of MT was found for motor impairment (effect size [95% confidence interval]: 0.473 [0.274-0.673], p < .001), motor function (0.266 [0.059-0.474], p = .012), and activities of daily living (ADL) (0.461 [0.25-0.671], p < .001), compared with controls. There was a significant difference in motor impairment (0.39 [0.134-0.647], p = .003), motor function (0.298 [0.003-0.593], p = .048), and ADL (0.461 [0.157-0.766], p = .003) in favor of bimanual MT compared with controls. No significant effect was found for unimanual MT. MT, specifically bimanual MT, is an effective intervention for improving motor recovery, motor function, and ADL in individuals with subacute stroke, whereas unimanual MT does not show significant benefits in these areas.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call