BackgroundVarious approaches to physical rehabilitation may be used after stroke, and considerable controversy and debate surround the effectiveness of relative approaches. Some physiotherapists base their treatments on a single approach; others use a mixture of components from several different approaches. ObjectivesTo determine whether physical rehabilitation approaches are effective in recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess if any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach.For the previous versions of this review, the objective was to explore the effect of 'physiotherapy treatment approaches' based on historical classifications of orthopaedic, neurophysiological or motor learning principles, or on a mixture of these treatment principles. For this update of the review, the objective was to explore the effects of approaches that incorporate individual treatment components, categorised as functional task training, musculoskeletal intervention (active), musculoskeletal intervention (passive), neurophysiological intervention, cardiopulmonary intervention, assistive device or modality.In addition, we sought to explore the impact of time after stroke, geographical location of the study, dose of the intervention, provider of the intervention and treatment components included within an intervention.

Background and Purpose-Understanding brain plasticity after stroke is important in developing rehabilitation strategies.Active movement therapies show considerable promise but depend on motor performance, excluding many otherwise eligible patients. Motor imagery is widely used in sport to improve performance, which raises the possibility of applying it both as a rehabilitation method and to access the motor network independently of recovery. Specifically, whether the primary motor cortex (M1), considered a prime target of poststroke rehabilitation, is involved in motor imagery is unresolved. Summary of Review-We review methodological considerations when applying motor imagery to healthy subjects and in patients with stroke, which may disrupt the motor imagery network. We then review firstly the motor imagery training literature focusing on upper-limb recovery, and secondly the functional imaging literature in healthy subjects and in patients with stroke. Conclusions-The review highlights the difficulty in addressing cognitive screening and compliance in motor imagery studies, particularly with regards to patients with stroke. Despite this, the literature suggests the encouraging effect of motor imagery training on motor recovery after stroke. Based on the available literature in healthy volunteers, robust activation of the nonprimary motor structures, but only weak and inconsistent activation of M1, occurs during motor imagery. In patients with stroke, the cortical activation patterns are essentially unexplored as is the underlying mechanism of motor imagery training. Provided appropriate methodology is implemented, motor imagery may provide a valuable tool to access the motor network and improve outcome after stroke.

No abstract

BackgroundExercise-based therapy is known to enhance motor recovery after stroke but the most appropriate amount, i.e. the dose, of therapy is unknown. To determine the strength of current evidence for provision of a higher dose of the same types of exercise-based therapy to enhance motor recovery after stroke.MethodsAn electronic search of: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, AMED, and CENTRAL was undertaken. Two independent reviewers selected studies using predetermined inclusion criteria: randomised or quasi randomised controlled trials with or without blinding of assessors; adults, 18+ years, with a clinical diagnosis of stroke; experimental and control group interventions identical except for dose; exercise-based interventions investigated; and outcome measures of motor impairment, movement control or functional activity. Two reviewers independently extracted outcome and follow-up data. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were interpreted with reference to risk of bias in included studies.Results9 papers reporting 7 studies were included. Only 3 of the 7 included studies had all design elements assessed as low risk of bias. Intensity of the control intervention ranged from a mean of 9 to 28 hours over a maximum of 20 weeks. Experimental groups received between 14 and 92 hours of therapy over a maximum of 20 weeks. The included studies were heterogeneous with respect to types of therapy, outcome measures and time-points for outcome and follow-up. Consequently, most effect sizes relate to one study only. Single study effect sizes suggest a trend for better recovery with increased dose at the end of therapy but this trend was less evident at follow-up Meta-analysis was possible at outcome for: hand-grip strength, -10.1 [-19.1,-1.2] (2 studies, 97 participants); Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), 0.1 [-5.7,6.0] (3 studies, 126 participants); and comfortable walking speed, 0.3 [0.1,0.5] (2 studies, 58 participants). At follow-up, between 12 and 26 weeks after start of therapy, meta-analysis findings were: Motricity Arm, 10.7 [1.7,19.8] (2 studies, 83 participants); ARAT, 2.2 [-6.0,10.4] (2 studies, 83 participants); Rivermead Mobility, 1.0 [-0.6, 2.5] (2 studies, 83 participants); and comfortable walking speed, 0.2 [0.0,0.4] (2 studies, 60 participants).ConclusionsCurrent evidence provides some, but limited, support for the hypothesis that a higher dose of the same type of exercised-based therapy enhances motor recovery after stroke. Prospective dose-finding studies are required.

This third paper discusses the evidence for the rehabilitation of the most common movement disorders of the upper extremity. We also present a framework, building on the CAP model, for incorporating some of the principles discussed in the two previous papers by Frey et al. and Sathian et al. in the practice of rehabilitation, and for discussing potentially helpful interventions based on emergent neuroscience principles.