Search

Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) and noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) are used to counteract learned nonuse phenomenon and imbalance in interhemispheric inhibition following stroke. The aim of this study is to summarize the available evidence on the effects of combining NIBS with CIMT in patients with stroke. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), PEDro, OTSeeker, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of NIBS+CIMT with sham NIBS+CIMT. Data on variables such as time since stroke and mean scores and standard deviations on outcomes assessed such as motor function were extracted. Cochrane risks of bias assessment tool and PEDro scale were used to assess the risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies. The results showed that both NIBS+CIMT and sham NIBS+CIMT improved all outcomes post-intervention and at follow-up. However, NIBS+CIMT is superior to sham NIBS+CIMT at improving level of motor impairment (SMD = 1.75, 95% CI = 0.49 to 3.01, P = 0.007) post-intervention and hand function (SMD = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.07 to 2.35, P = 0.04) at follow-up. The addition of NIBS to CIMT seems to provide additional benefits to the recovery of function following stroke. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To examine whether differences emerged when the Chinese version of the Movement-Specific Reinvestment Scale ( MSRS- C) was administered to community-dwelling older adults with instructions to respond in the context of 'general' movements, walking, using chopsticks or dressing. Furthermore, the difference between the six-point Likert scale and four-point Likert scale response formats of the MSRS- C was investigated. Methods The study was implemented in the community of Hong Kong with 52 older adults (mean age 77.4 years). Telephone interviews were carried out on two occasions for each participant. Participants provided a verbal response to each of 10 questions from the MSRS- C with different response formats (i.e., six-point or four-point Likert Scales) and different instructions in the response context (i.e. general, walking, using chopsticks, dressing). The sequence of response format and context was randomized for each participant. Results Older fallers scored significantly higher on the MSRS- C (general) with six-point or four-point response formats than non-fallers. The MSRS- C (general) and MSRS- C (walking) were not statistically different, and showed good discriminative power for previous older fall status (older fallers or older non-fallers). However, MSRS- C (chopsticks) and MSRS- C (dressing) failed to differentiate older fallers from older non-fallers. Conclusion Both the MSRS- C (general) and MSRS- C (walking) with a six-point or a four-point response format showed good discrimination of older fallers from non-fallers. Older adults might respond to the MSRS- C with respect to the most challenging movements (e.g. fall-related movements) in their daily living. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 1305-1311. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]