Clinical Rehabilitation - Bobath Concept

431903

2012

CRE26810.1177/0269215511431903Huseyinsinoglu et al.Clinical Rehabilitation

CLINICAL REHABILITATION

Article

Bobath Concept versus constraint-induced movement therapy to improve arm functional recovery in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical Rehabilitation 26(8) 705­–715 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0269215511431903 cre.sagepub.com

Burcu Ersoz Huseyinsinoglu1, Arzu Razak Ozdincler2 and Yakup Krespi1

Abstract Objective: To compare the effects of the Bobath Concept and constraint-induced movement therapy on arm functional recovery among stroke patients with a high level of function on the affected side. Design: A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient physiotherapy department of a stroke unit. Subjects: A total of 24 patients were randomized to constraint-induced movement therapy or Bobath Concept group. Intervention: The Bobath Concept group was treated for 1 hour whereas the constraint-induced movement therapy group received training for 3 hours per day during 10 consecutive weekdays. Main measures: Main measures were the Motor Activity Log-28, the Wolf Motor Function Test, the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients and the Functional Independence Measure. Results: The two groups were found to be homogeneous based on demographic variables and baseline measurements. Significant improvements were seen after treatment only in the ‘Amount of use’ and ‘Quality of movement’ subscales of the Motor Activity Log-28 in the constraint-induced movement therapy group over the the Bobath Concept group (P = 0.003; P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in Wolf Motor Function Test ‘Functional ability’ (P = 0.137) and ‘Performance time’ (P = 0.922), Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients (P = 0.947) and Functional Independence Measure scores (P = 0.259) between the two intervention groups. Conclusions: Constraint-induced movement therapy and the Bobath Concept have similar efficiencies in improving functional ability, speed and quality of movement in the paretic arm among stroke patients with a high level of function. Constraint-induced movement therapy seems to be slightly more efficient than the Bobath Concept in improving the amount and quality of affected arm use.

1Stroke

Unit, Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey University School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Istanbul, Turkey 2Istanbul

Corresponding author: Burcu Ersoz Huseyinsinoglu, Florence Nightingale Hastanesi, Inme Merkezi, Abide-i Hurriyet Cad. No: 164 Sisli Istanbul, Turkey Email: [email protected]

706

Clinical Rehabilitation 26(8)

Keywords Bobath Concept, constraint-induced movement therapy, rehabilitation, stroke recovery, arm Received: 21 July 2011; accepted: 6 November 2011

Introduction After stroke, around 70–80% of patients suffer from arm motor dysfunction of various degrees.1 Even mild impairment of arm function after stroke results in significant limitations in daily function and has been demonstrated to negatively impact quality of life.2,3 The Bobath Concept is currently defined as a problem-solving approach which places particular emphasis on the control of selective movement and the integration of postural control and task performance for the production of coordinated movement.4 The developments in the Bobath Concept have not yet been studied in trials of arm rehabilitation in stroke patients. More seriously, clinical studies in which intervention procedures have been used may not have reflected current Bobath Concept practice.4,5 Constraint-induced movement therapy is a repetitive, task-oriented training of the impaired arm for several hours a day. It also involves behavioural methods designed to transfer gains made in therapy sessions and constraining the patient to use the affected arm by using a protective mitt on the unaffected arm.6 Although the effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy has been shown in several studies, it is has been criticized because of difficulties in its application, its cost and the prolonged duration of treatment needed.7,8 There is still no consensus on the most effective intervention and treatment dose based on functional level of arm after stroke as trials differ in their methodological qualities.9 The questions that need to be answered in stroke rehabilitation, and more specifically in arm rehabilitation, are ‘at what intensity, and which treatment is more beneficial for which patient’? The answers to those questions would help to develop evidence-based physiotherapy concepts to improve arm and hand function after stroke.10,11

At present there is still no evidence to confirm whether the Bobath Concept is more or less effective than constraint-induced movement therapy. Therefore this study aimed to compare the effects of Bobath Concept and constraint-induced movement therapy on arm functional recovery among stroke patients who had high-level function in the affected side.

Methods This single-blind, randomized clinical trial included stroke patients with a high level of function in the paretic arm. Arm function level was determined according to the active motion of distal joints and patients had to demonstrate active wrist extension of at least 20 degrees and 10 degrees of active extension of the metacarpophalangeal joints and each interphalangeal joint of all digits.12 Subjects were recruited from the outpatient clinic of the Stroke Unit of the Florence Nightingale Hospital. Twentyfour patients were eligible based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) a history of first-time stroke (3–24 months post stroke); (2) patients between 18 and 80 years of age; (3) active range of motion of at least 45 degrees of shoulder flexion, abduction or scaption, 20 degrees of elbow extension, 20 degrees of wrist extension from full flexion position, and 10 degrees of active extension of metacarpophalangeal joints and each interphalangeal joint of all digits;12 (4) ability to maintain standing balance for two minutes with arm support if necessary;12 (5) adequate vision and hearing to understand the test and therapy sessions; (6) adequate communication skills; (7) no serious cognitive disorders (score ≥24 on the Mini Mental State Exam);12 (8) exhibit no excessive pain that would interfere with the ability to participate in the treatment; (9) show no excessive spasticity in any joint of the affected arm (score ≤2 on the

707

Huseyinsinoglu et al. Modified Ashworth Scale in any joint); (10) considerable non-use of the affected upper limb (Amount of use and Quality of movement score  0.05). Both constraint-induced movement therapy and Bobath Concept groups showed statistically significant improvements on all measurements (Motor Activity Log-28, Wolf Motor Function Test, Motor

709

Huseyinsinoglu et al.

Assessed for eligibility (n=83) Excluded (n=59) Unable to attain high function (n=32) MAL-28 score >2.5 (n=6) No weakness in affected arm (n=13) Mini Mental State Exam score  0.05). In addition, both Functional Independence Measure total score and Functional Independence Measure self-care score

after treatment were not significantly different between the two groups (P  >  0.05) (Table 2). Since the constraint-induced movement therapy group showed significant improvements only in quality and amount of impaired arm use compared to the Bobath Concept group and considering that dominantside paresis was slightly but not significantly more frequent in the constraint-induced movement therapy group, we investigated whether there was an effect of dominant-side paresis. However, there was no effect of dominant-side paresis on improvement of Motor Activity Log-28 Amount of use (95% CI, –1.13–0.62, P  =  0.551) and Motor Activity Log-28 Quality of movement (95% CI, –1.01–0.68, P  =  0.685).

710

Clinical Rehabilitation 26(8)

Table 1.  Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study groups Characteristic

CIMT group (n = 11)

BC group (n = 11)

P for difference

Age, years (mean ± SD) Time since stroke, months (mean ± SD) Level of education in years (mean ± SD) Sex, M/F (n) Received physiotherapy previously, n (%) Living at home with family or caregiver, n (%) Received botolunim toxin-A injection within past 3 months, n (%) Lesion type, n (%)  Ischaemic  Haemorrhagic Paresis on dominant side, n (%) Sensation loss, n (%) Pain, n (%) Speech disorder, n (%) Functional evaluationa   MAL-28 AOU   MAL-28 QOM  MESUPES   WMFT FA   WMFT PT (s)   FIM self-care   FIM total

49.1 ± 13.7 10.6 ± 6.1 9.8 ± 4.2 7/4 11 (100%) 11 (100%) 3/8

48.2 ± 15.4 13.1 ± 6.3 9.7 ± 5.1 5/6 11 (100%) 11 (100%) 4/7

0.948 0.322 1.000 0.392 1.000 1.000 0.647

7 (63.6%) 4 (36.4%) 7 (63.6%) 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (9.1%)

10 (90.9%) 1 (9.1%) 3 (27.3%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (9.1%) 0

0.311   0.087 1.000 1.000 1.000

0.9 (0.6) 0.79 (0.58) 43 (7.42) 3.2 (0.9) 25.6 (19) 30.1 (8.75) 111.3 (12.5)

0.63 (0.65) 0.63 (0.66) 38 (12.2) 2.9 (0.9) 31.5 (23.7) 31 (6.9) 112 (13.4)

0.212 0.358 0.340 0.373 0.768 0.717 0.792

aResults

of functional evaluation are expressed in mean scores (SD). CIMT, constraint-induced movement therapy; BC, Bobath Concept; MAL-28 AOU, Motor Activity Log-28 Amount of use; MAL-28 QOM, Motor Activity Log-28 Quality of movement; MESUPES, Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients; WMFT FA, Wolf Motor Function Test Functional Ability; WMFT PT, Wolf Motor Function Test Performance Time; FIM, Functional Independence Measure.

Discussion Our study revealed that the Bobath Concept and constraint-induced movement therapy approaches resulted in similar degrees of functional ability, performance time, quality of movement and independence level in activities of daily living in stroke patients with a high level of function in the affected arm. However, the two treatment groups differed with regard to purely subjective criteria (i.e. Motor Activity Log-28 Amount of use scale and Quality of movement scale). Significant improvements were seen after treatment in the amount and quality of affected arm use in constraint-induced movement therapy group over the Bobath Concept group.

In our study, results from the Motor Activity Log28 were consistent with many studies in the literature which compare the effect of constraint-induced movement therapy versus different control groups in stroke patients.7 The EXCITE trial, the first randomized multicentre trial of constraint-induced movement therapy, concluded that administration of constraint-induced movement therapy resulted in statistically relevant improvements in amount and quality of paretic arm use compared with usual and customary care in stroke patients who experienced a first stroke between three and nine months prior.12 Taub et al demonstrated in a placebo-controlled trial that chronic stroke patients showed very large improvements in constraint-induced movement

711

Huseyinsinoglu et al. Table 2.  Comparison of the two treatment groups for functional outcome measures Outcome measures

CIMT group (n = 11)

     

Baseline Mean ± SD Median (Min–max)

After treatment Mean ± SD Median (Min–max)

MAL-28 AOU     MAL-28 QOM     WMFT FA     WMFT PT(s)     MESUPES     FIM self-care     FIM total    

0.9 ± 0.6 0.9 (0.2–2) 0.79 ± 0.58 0.75 (0.2–2) 3.27 ± 0.96 3.1 (2–4.8) 25.6 ± 19 22.8 (6–60) 43 ± 7.4 44 (33–53) 30.1 ± 8.75 28 (15–40) 112.2 ± 12.5 110 (86–124)

3,2 ± 0.57 3.2 (2.1–4) 3 ± 0.56 3 (1.9–3.9) 4.03 ± 0.78 4.2 (2.4–5) 15.2 ± 13.7 7.8 (4.2–46) 48.7 ± 7.1 51 (37–56) 35 ± 6.6 36 (19–42) 116.3 ± 11.1 119 (87–126)

P-value† Effect size, r

BC group (n = 11)

Baseline P-value* Mean ± SD Median (Min–max) 0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.63 ± 0.65 0.46 (0.03–2.2) 0.63 ± 0.66 0.46 (0.03–2.3) 2.9 ± 0.9 2.6 (2–4.8) 31.5 ± 23.7 30.8 (5–84) 38 ± 12.2 41 (17–54) 31.9 ± 6.9 33 (18–40) 112 ± 13.4 117 (77–124)

After treatment Mean ± SD P-value* Median (Min–max) 1.78 ± 1.08 1.6 (0.25–3.32) 1.78 ± 1.09 1.73 (0.25–3.40) 3.3 ± 1.1 3 (2–5) 20.5 ± 18 17.4 (3.60–65) 43.4 ± 11.5 42 (26–58) 35.1 ± 5.2 36 (24–42) 115.7 ± 10.9 119 (87–126)

     

0.003

0.003

0.003

0.01

0.008

0.137

0.003

0.922

0.003

0.947

0.005

0.259

0.005

0.336

0.64     0.53     0.31     0.02     0.01     0.24     0.20    

*P for baseline versus after treatment. †P for CIMT versus BC. CIMT, constraint-induced movement therapy; BC, Bobath Concept; MAL-28 AOU, Motor Activity Log-28 Amount of use; MAL-28 QOM, Motor Activity Log-28 Quality of movement; MESUPES, Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke Patients; WMFT FA, Wolf Motor Function Test Functional Ability; WMFT PT, Wolf Motor Function Test Performance Time; FIM, Functional Independence Measure.

therapy group relative to the general fitness control group.22 In another study Lin et al found that a constraint-induced movement therapy group exhibited significantly better performance in Motor Activity Log than the dose-matched control intervention.23 It is of note to emphasize that the Motor Activity Log-28 was originally developed for the assessment of the improvement in patients under constraintinduced movement therapy, which may partly

explain Motor Activity Log-28 results in favour of this treatment modality. On the other hand, placing the unaffected hand in a protective safety mitt for a total of 90% of waking hours during the constraintinduced movement therapy intervention may lead the patients to perceive that they have made ‘more use’ of the affected arm and this may have a positive effect, especially on the results of the Amount of use scale in the Motor Activity Log-28. Therefore

712 long-term results are important to conclude whether this effect lasts when the safety mitt is removed during the daytime after treatment. As there are conflicting results about the long-term results of the Motor Activity Log-28 in the literature, the main goal of rehabilitation may be determined carefully for high-level arm post-stroke patients before admitting the patient to the constraint-induced movement therapy intervention.12,24,25 In our study, dominant-side paresis was more frequent in the constraint-induced movement therapy group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (P  =  0.087). It is plausible that patients with dominant-hand paresis may have more potential to use the affected arm effectively because they used to perform many activities with that dominant side before their stroke. However, further analysis showed that dominant-hand paresis has no effect on recovery as measured by the Motor Activity Log-28 Amount of use and Quality of movement scales. These results are consistent with other studies that examined the influence of hand dominance on response to constraint-induced movement therapy.26,27 The Wolf Motor Function Test, which measures arm motor function objectively, was the primary outcome of our trial. Similar to our findings, some studies that compared the effects of constraintinduced movement therapy using a control group could not find any statistically significant difference in motor dysfunction after treatment.28,29 On the other hand, several other studies that used conventional therapy or a general care control group showed significant improvements in the constraintinduced movement therapy group on Wolf Motor Function Test.12,22,23 Different results for motor dysfunction after treatment might be explained by the differences in treatment doses and the therapy content in the control groups compared with the constraint-induced movement therapy group. Increased duration of therapy and increased number of training hours have been suggested to improve the results of constraint-induced movement therapy.30 Although therapy duration is important, arm motor function recovery could not be explained based on therapeutic time alone. The results related to Wolf Motor Function Test in our

Clinical Rehabilitation 26(8) study support the concept that to achieve a better level of motor function in the arm, it is important to work on skill acquisition, movement quality and patient-specific activity, as well as repeated activities with longer duration therapy sessions.31 In this study, the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients was used as an objective means to assess changes in the quality of arm movement. According to the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients procedures, accuracy and amount of movement are measured by the physical therapist while the patient performs the activity. This is the main difference that discriminates the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients from the Motor Activity Log-28 Quality of movement scale. The Quality of movement scale is more subjective than the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients as it is a semi-structured interview scale. The patient answers the question about how well he or she uses the affected arm during each daily activity in the Motor Activity Log Quality of movement scale. In our trial different approaches of these measurements may cause the different results for quality of movement in the two intervention groups. While the constraint-induced movement therapy group had better performance on the Motor Activity Log-28 Quality of movement scale than the Bobath Concept group after treatments, no statistically significant difference in Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients was evident between the two intervention groups. On the other hand, the results for the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients may show that although constraint-induced movement therapy emphasizes frequent repetition of the movement it may affect the quality of movement positively in stroke patients with a high-level arm. In this study, the difference between two groups in activities of daily living levels following treatment was not statistically significant. This finding is consistent with many studies that measured activities of daily living levels with Functional Independence Measure or other related scales after arm rehabilitation of stroke patients.23,32 Since activities of daily living measurements often reflect compensatory behaviour, arm recovery may not primarily be explained by those measurements. As we

Huseyinsinoglu et al. aimed to investigate the global effects of interventions in activities of daily living level, in our trial we also assessed the patients by using Functional Independence Measure beside the motor function tests. Up to this point we have generally discussed trials that compare the effects of constraint-induced movement therapy versus other interventions, in the form of conventional therapy, custom care or neurodevelopmental treatment (intensive bimanual training), since few trials have investigated the outcomes of Bobath Concept on arm recovery in stroke patients.5,33,34 It is suggested in a review about the effect of Bobath Concept on arm recovery that sensitive upper limb measures, trained Bobath therapists and homogenous samples should be used.5 In our trial the methodology was consistent with the suggestions of this review. Another trial looked at the effects of increased exercise therapy time for arm rehabilitation with either Bobath Concept or Arm BASIS training in stroke patients with severe arm paresis. Fugl-Meyer arm motor score was the main measurement and it was concluded that the increased exercise therapy time for Arm BASIS training enhanced selective motor control in severe arm paresis group after stroke.31 As our trial aimed to compare the efficiency of the Bobath Concept and constraint-induced movement therapy, the treatments were applied to the participants according to the original protocols without taking into account the time period. This meant that the constraintinduced movement therapy group had three times as much therapy time as the Bobath Concept group. Nevertheless, in our stroke group with a high level of function in the affected arm there was no significant difference between two groups in Wolf Motor Function Test after treatments. There is some strength in our study. This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of constraint-induced movement therapy and Bobath Concept in Turkish stroke patient population. Both interventions were performed by a certified physical therapist with ten years’ experience in stroke rehabilitation. Therefore the original procedure of constraint-induced movement therapy and current practice of Bobath Concept were applied to the participants. The blind rater was trained in the

713 procedures before the trial. With the aim of creating homogeneous treatment groups, pre-stratification was done with regard to botulinum toxin-A injections within the previous three months. In the present study, inclusion criteria regarding the phase of stroke was limited to patients with subacute–chronic stroke to ignore the effects of spontaneous recovery on treatment approaches. The effect size of Wolf Motor Function Test Functional Ability which was obtained from this trial may be used as a reference to calculate power of a multicentre clinical trial if this outcome measurement is determined as a primary outcome. Several limitations of this trial are noteworthy. First, as this trial was a PhD thesis it was carried out in one centre and a single physical therapist gave both treatments. Because of difficulty in finding eligible patients who met all the inclusion criteria of the study in just one centre, we had a relatively small sample size. On the other hand, a single therapist could have been biased towards favouring one or other treatment, and this might have affected the outcome. A single physical therapist would also have much the same interpersonal relationship in both groups so this could be an advantage of our trial. Second, time since stroke (3–24 months) was too long and no other factors than botulinum toxinA treatment was taken into account for the prestratification of patients. If such a long time after stroke is defined as an inclusion criteria, factors such as prior rehabilitation duration, drug treatments, depression status and environmental variables such as living conditions and caregivers are all important factors affecting recovery and should be considered in multicentre trials. Nevertheless all our patients received physiotherapy previously, and were living at home with family or caregivers. Third it was not possible to evaluate fulfilment of the requirement to use a mitt on the unaffected side as well as to record their activities for 90% of waking hours, because most of the patients did not fill the home diary correctly. On the other hand, objective results about compliance with home exercise programmes was not determined in the two treatment group. Another limitation of our study was that intention-to-treat analysis was not employed. For this reason, we did not avoid the effect of drop-outs

714 in the constraint-induced movement therapy group. Finally, three patients with Wolf Motor Function Test pretreatment scores very close to the upper limit potentially and causing bias were not excluded from the study because they were reported to be suffering from weakness of the affected arm. Clinical messages •• Constraint-induced movement therapy and the Bobath Concept have similar efficacy in arm rehabilitation of stroke patients with high-level arm function according to objective criteria such as functional ability, speed and quality of movement. •• Constraint-induced movement therapy is more effective than the Bobath Concept in improving the amount and quality of paretic arm use with regard to a patient’s perception. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References 1. Patel MD, Tilling K, Lawrence E, Rudd AG, Wolfe CD and McKevitt C. Relationships between long-term stroke disability, handicap and health-related quality of life. Age Ageing 2006; 35: 273–279. 2. Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A and Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke 2005; 36: 1480– 1484. 3. Lai SM, Studenski S, Duncan PW and Perera S. Persisting consequences of stroke measured by the stroke impact scale. Stroke 2002; 33: 1840–1844. 4. Graham JV, Eustace C, Brock K, Swain E and Irwin-Carruthers S. The Bobath Concept in contemporary clinical practice. Top Stroke Rehabil 2009; 16: 57–68. 5. Luke C, Dodds K and Brock K. Outcomes of the Bobath Concept on upper limb recovery following stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004; 18: 888–898. 6. Morris DM, Taub E and Mark VW. Constraint-induced movement therapy: characterizing the intervention protocol. Eura Medicophys 2006; 42: 257–268. 7. Sirtori V, Corbetta D, Moja L and Gatti R. Constraintinduced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009: CD004433.

Clinical Rehabilitation 26(8) 8. Sterr A, Szameitat A, Shen S and Freivogel S. Application of the CIT concept in the clinical environment: hurdles, practicalities, and clinical benefits. Cogn Behav Neurol 2006; 19: 48–54. 9. Young JA and Tolentino M. Neuroplasticity and its applications for rehabilitation. Am J Ther 2011; 18: 70–80. 10. Liepert J. Evidence-based therapies for arm dysfunction. Curr Opin Neurol 2010; 23: 678–682. 11. Kwakkel G, Van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC, et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke. A metaanalysis. Stroke 2004; 35: 2529–2536. 12. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP, et al. Effect of constraintinduced movement therapy on arm function 3 to 9 months after stroke: The EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 2095–2104. 13. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B and Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf Motor Function Test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke 2001; 32: 1635–1639. 14. Morris DM, Uswatte G, Crago JE, Cook EW, III and Taub E. The reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test for assessing arm function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82: 750–755. 15. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K and Thompson PA. The motor activity log-28: Assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology 2006; 67: 1189–1194. 16. Huseyinsinoglu BE, Ozdincler AR, Oğul OE and Krespi Y. Reliability and validity of Turkish version of Motor Activity Log-28. Turkish J Neurol 2011; 17: 83–89. 17. Van de Winckel A, Feys H, van der Knaap S, et al. Can quality of movement be measured? Rasch analysis and inter-rater reliability of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients (MESUPES). Clin Rehabil 2006; 20: 871–884. 18. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F and Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3186–3191. 19. Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, et al. The functional independence measure: A comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17: 10–14. 20. Kücükdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, Sonel B and Tennant A. Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 311–319. 21. Cohen J (ed.) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral seciences, second edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988. 22. Taub E, Uswatte G, King DK, Morris D, Crago JE and Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for arm after stroke. Stroke 2006; 37: 1045–1049. 23. Lin KC, Wu CY, Liu JS, Chen YT and Hsu CJ. Constraintinduced therapy versus dose-matched control intervention to improve motor ability, basic/extended daily functions, and quality of life in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 160–165.

Huseyinsinoglu et al. 24. Dahl AE, Askim T, Stock R, Langorgen E, Lydersen S and Indredavik B. Short- and long-term outcome of constraintinduced movement therapy after stroke: A randomized controlled feasibility trial. Clin Rehabil 2008; 22: 436–447. 25. Brogardh C, Flansbjer UB and Lexell J. What is the longterm benefit of constraint-induced movement therapy? A four-year follow-up. Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 418–423. 26. Langan J and van Donkelaar P. The influence of hand dominance on the response to a constraint-induced therapy program following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 298–304. 27. Fritz SL, Light KE, Clifford SN, Patterson TS, Behrman AL and Davis SB. Descriptive characteristics as potential predictors of outcomes following constraint-induced movement therapy for people after stroke. Phys Ther 2006; 86: 825–832. 28. Dromerick AW, Lang CE, Birkenmeier RL, et al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (vectors): A single-center RCT. Neurology 2009; 73: 195–201. 29. Wittenberg GF, Chen R, Ishii K, et al. Constraint-induced therapy in stroke: Magnetic-stimulation motor maps and

715 cerebral activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003; 17: 48–57. 30. Wolf SL, Newton H, Maddy D, et al. The EXCITE trial: Relationship of intensity of constraint induced movement therapy to improvement in the wolf motor function test. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2007; 25: 549–562. 31. Platz T, Eickhof C, van Kaick S, et al. Impairment-oriented training or bobath therapy for severe arm paresis after stroke: A single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2005; 19: 714–724. 32. Myint MW, Yuen FC, Yu KK, et al. Use of constraintinduced movement therapy in chinese stroke patients during the sub-acute period. Hong Kong Med J 2008; 14: 40–42. 33. Langhammer B and Stanghelle JK. Bobath or Motor Relearning Programme? A comparison of two different approaches of physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 361–369. 34. Gelber DA, Josefczyk PB, Herman D, Good DC and Verhulst SJ. Comparison of two therapy approaches in the rehabilitation of the pure motor hemiparetic stroke patient. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 1995; 9: 191–196.

Copyright of Clinical Rehabilitation is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.