Effectiveness of a standardised stroke upper extremity rehabilitation program with shortened Fugl-Meyer assessment stratification: A randomised controlled trial.
Sally Hiu Lam Wong, Tina Hiu Tung Chim, Bryan Ping Ho Chung and 1 others
PMID 41477567WHAT IT FOUND
Stratifying stroke upper-limb therapy by a 6-item Fugl-Meyer score did not improve arm movement, hand function or daily independence more than conventional physiotherapy.
Both groups improved.
Key findings
01The standardised programme did not produce greater gains than conventional physiotherapy in upper-limb movement, functional hand use or daily independence.
02Both groups improved on upper-limb movement, functional hand use and daily independence after training.
03In the severe-impairment subgroup, the standardised group showed slightly larger gains in upper-limb movement and function, but these differences did not reach statistical significance.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 39 of the 44 recruited participants were analysed. The mild and moderate impairment subgroups had very few participants. Participants and training therapists knew which group they were in. The same team of therapists delivered both the standardised programme and conventional training. The number of training sessions varied with length of hospital stay, from 5 to 20 sessions. The control group had a longer time since stroke and more training sessions than the experimental group. Participants were Chinese stroke patients in the early subacute phase at one hospital. The study was small, so it could not reliably detect subgroup effects. The standardised programme included several treatment choices, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest. No funding, financial or resource support was received.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude the programme helps severe upper-limb impairment because the severe-subgroup gains were larger. Those differences were small and not statistically significant, and the main comparison was null.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →