Constraint-induced movement therapy in treatment of acute and sub-acute stroke: a meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials

• Main Authors: Xi-hua Liu, Juan Huai, Jie Gao, Yang Zhang, Shou-wei Yue
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2017-01-01
• Series: Neural Regeneration Research
• Subjects: nerve regeneration; stroke; constraint-induced movement therapy; meta-analysis; upper extremity function; rehabilitation; intensity; neural regeneration
• Online Access: http://www.nrronline.org/article.asp?issn=1673-5374;year=2017;volume=12;issue=9;spage=1443;epage=1450;aulast=Liu

Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of constraint-induced movement therapy in acute and sub-acute stroke. Data Sources: The key words were stroke, cerebrovascular accident, constraint-induced therapy, forced use, and randomized controlled trial. The databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, Weipu Information Resources System, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched for studies on randomized controlled trials for treating acute or sub-acute stroke published before March 2016. Data Selection: We retrieved relevant randomized controlled trials that compared constraint-induced movement therapy in treatment of acute or sub-acute stroke with traditional rehabilitation therapy (traditional occupational therapy). Patients were older than 18 years, had disease courses less than 6 months, and were evaluated with at least one upper extremity function scale. Study quality was evaluated, and data that met the criteria were extracted. Stata 11.0 software was used for the meta-analysis. Outcome Measures: Fugl-Meyer motor assessment of the arm, the action research-arm test, a motor activity log for amount of use and quality of movement, the Wolf motor function test, and a modified Barthel index. Results: A total of 16 prospective randomized controlled trials (379 patients in the constraint-induced movement-therapy group and 359 in the control group) met inclusion criteria. Analysis showed significant mean differences in favor of constraint-induced movement therapy for the Fugl–Meyer motor assessment of the arm (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 10.822; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 7.419–14.226), the action research-arm test (WMD = 10.718; 95% CI: 5.704–15.733), the motor activity log for amount of use and quality of movement (WMD = 0.812; 95% CI: 0.331–1.293) and the modified Barthel index (WMD = 10.706; 95% CI: 4.417–16.966). Conclusion: Constraint-induced movement therapy may be more beneficial than traditional rehabilitation therapy for improving upper limb function after acute or sub-acute stroke.