Mim-pong: a serious game for assessment and treatment of the lower limb in hemiparetic stroke patients.
Fernando Lf Eichinger, Fabrício Noveletto, Susana C Domenech and 3 others
PMID 40151381WHAT IT FOUND
After ten weeks, a game-based leg programme did not beat conventional therapy on strength, walking or motor impairment; only motor control differed between the groups.
The game's score matched measured leg strength well, and the 16 patients using it improved on nearly every measure.
Key findings
01The score the game produced was strongly related to measured quadriceps and hamstring strength on both sides, in both groups.
02After treatment the game group did better than the conventional group on motor control of the quadriceps on the paralysed side (P = 0.001) and the unaffected side (P = 0.029), and of the hamstrings on the unaffected side (P = 0.029).
03On everything else measured after treatment, the groups did not differ significantly: strength, motor impairment and walking speed.
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
The groups were not randomised. The researchers decided who went where, and the control group ended up with only 8 patients against 16, so the two groups may have differed in ways the study did not measure. Only 24 patients took part. All of them finished, so the per-protocol analysis did not leave anyone out, but a study this size cannot rule out a real difference between the treatments. The paper does not report any blinding. The strength and motor control measurements were taken by the same examiners, and the control group's training was delivered by the researcher, so the people measuring knew who had received what. Fatigue and motivation were not measured, even though motivation is the main reason the authors give for using a game. Patients were only measured before and after the ten weeks, so nothing is known about whether any gains lasted. Average time since stroke was 16.8 months and most participants were in the chronic phase, so these results may not carry over to people in the first weeks or months after a stroke. The game's score is worked out partly from muscle strength, as the authors themselves note, so the strong link between score and strength is not independent evidence that the score captures anything new. The conclusion that the game outperformed conventional therapy rests mainly on improvements within the game group and on the authors' comparison with a clinical-important-change threshold, not on significant differences between the two groups for strength, motor impairment or walking.
Declared interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. The text supplied does not name a funding source.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof the game works better than conventional therapy. After ten weeks the two groups did not differ significantly on strength, motor impairment or walking speed; the only significant differences were in motor control, and the study was not randomised, with 16 patients against 8. A strong link between the game's score and leg strength is also partly built in, because the score itself is calculated in part from strength.
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 →