Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation-Delivered LSVT-BIG on Motor Function in Chronic Stroke Patients: A Single-Subject Experimental Study.
Seon-A Jeong, Deok-Gi Hong, In-Tae Choi
All three chronic stroke patients got faster on the Timed Up and Go, moved more blocks in the Box and Block test, and scored higher on daily living and occupational performance after 16 remote LSVT-BIG sessions over 4 weeks.
With only three people and no comparison group, this is a signal, not proof.
Key findings
1All three participants completed the Timed Up and Go faster during the 16-session intervention than during the 4-session baseline, and the faster times held at the 4-session re-baseline. The authors judged this significant using a two-standard-deviation visual analysis criterion rather than a conventional statistical test.
2All three participants moved more blocks in the Box and Block test during the intervention than in baseline, with the gain maintained at re-baseline. Participant C went from moving zero blocks in baseline to three during intervention and five and a half at re-baseline.
3On the pre-and-post measures, all three participants scored higher on the Fugl-Meyer upper limb scale, the modified Barthel index, and both the performance and satisfaction scores of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure after the intervention.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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
Three participants, all male, from a single hospital in South Korea; the authors themselves note this limits generalisability. No comparison group and no blinding; the ABA design cannot rule out that the improvements came from the general rehabilitation given throughout, from repeated testing, or from the passage of time. No follow-up beyond the 4-session re-baseline, so it is unknown whether the gains lasted. The Korean version of the MMSE was used without permission at the time of data collection; the authors state this has since been rectified with the publisher. The 'statistical significance' for the repeated measures rests on a two-standard-deviation visual-analysis rule, not a conventional inferential test, and the pre-post measures have no significance testing at all. The on-site occupational therapist was present for every session and provided physical assistance when needed, so the intervention was not purely remote and the degree of hands-on support varied by participant.
Declared interests
Funded by Wonkwang University (2024). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these improvements as proof that LSVT-BIG caused them. All three patients were also receiving general rehabilitation throughout both the baseline and the intervention periods, so the gains could reflect that treatment, the repeated testing itself, or simply the passage of time. With three participants, no comparison group, and no follow-up, the study cannot separate the effect of LSVT-BIG from anything else that was happening.
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 →