The efficacy of interactive, motion capture-based rehabilitation on functional outcomes in an inpatient stroke population: a randomized controlled trial.
John Cannell, Emelyn Jovic, Amy Rathjen and 6 others
PMID 28719977WHAT IT FOUND
Adding motion capture-based exercises to usual physical therapy did not improve standing balance more than usual physical therapy alone in subacute stroke inpatients.
Both groups improved balance and some function, but not walking speed.
Key findings
01The primary outcome, standing balance measured by Functional Reach, showed no significant between-group difference (P = 0.69).
02Both groups improved over time in standing balance, sitting balance, upper limb function and Timed Up and Go (all P < 0.04).
03Comfortable and fast 10-m walking velocity did not change significantly (comfortable P = 0.08; fast P = 0.33).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat 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
Only 73 of 79 baseline participants had complete data. Participants had a wide range of mobility and baseline function, and the variability was larger than the sample size calculation assumed. The mean number of therapy sessions was 14, which may have been too low to show a difference. The trial had no long-term follow-up, so it cannot show whether one approach produces lasting improvement. The study was single-blind, so participants and therapists knew the treatment. The unit comparison was confounded because unit B had lower baseline lateral reach and lower Functional Independence Measure scores.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Stroke Foundation, Australia. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. Professor Smith has received funding from Jintronix Incorporated.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the improvements over time as evidence that motion capture works better than usual therapy. Both groups improved, and the primary between-group comparison was null (P = 0.69).