Downloadable ContentDownload PDF
A meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of mirror therapy vs modified constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity hemiparesis and quality of life in patients with subacute stroke
Background: Every year, more than 795,000 people in the United States have a stroke.1 Reduced mobility, secondary to unilateral motor and sensory deficits, are seen in more than half of stroke survivors age 65 and over.1 As a result, hemiparesis is the leading cause of long-term disability in patients post stroke.1 Objective: Define effects of MT (indirect training) versus mCIMT (direct training) on UE hemiparesis and QOL. It is hypothesized that MT protocol will produce significantly better outcomes. Because physical therapists are viewed as an essential part in post stroke recovery, it is important to recognize which intervention is most ideal for a specific hemispheric infarct. Methods: A literature review was conducted from August to November 2019 and consisted of the following databases: Pubmed, EBSCO, and CINAHL. The studies were assessed and reviewed on the specified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A fixed effect size model of 2 groups was used for the included studies to generate the Q-value, Pvalue, effect size, and confidence interval. Results: The results favored mCIMT(direct intervention) to mirror therapy(indirect intervention) in the subacute phase of recovery for upper extremity function and quality of life . Conclusion: This meta-analysis found mCIMT to be a more effective intervention when addressing hemiparesis and QOL. The evidence should, however, be interpreted with caution until further studies are included.