Search

Background: A recently updated Cochrane review for mirror therapy (MT) showed a high level of evidence in the treatment of hemiparesis after stroke. However, the therapeutic protocols used in the individual studies showed significant variability., Objective: A secondary meta-analysis was performed to detect which parameters of these protocols may influence the effect of MT for upper limb paresis after stroke., Methods: Trials included in the Cochrane review, which published data for motor function / impairment of the upper limb, were subjected to this analysis. Trials or trial arms that used MT as group therapy or combined it with electrical or magnetic stimulation were excluded. The analysis focused on the parameters mirror size, uni- or bilateral movement execution, and type of exercise. Data were pooled by calculating the total weighted standardized mean difference and the 95% confidence interval., Results: Overall, 32 trials were included. The use of a large mirror compared to a small mirror showed a higher effect on motor function. Movements executed unilaterally showed a higher effect on motor function than a bilateral execution. MT exercises including manipulation of objects showed a minor effect on motor function compared to movements excluding the manipulation of objects. None of the subgroup differences reached statistical significance., Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that the effects on both motor function and impairment of the affected upper limb depend on the therapy protocol. They furthermore indicate that a large mirror, unilateral movement execution and exercises without objects may be parameters that enhance the effects of MT for improving motor function after stroke.

Background: Mirror therapy is used to improve motor function after stroke. During mirror therapy, a mirror is placed in the person's midsagittal plane, thus reflecting movements of the non-paretic side as if it were the affected side., Objectives: To summarise the effectiveness of mirror therapy compared with no treatment, placebo or sham therapy, or other treatments for improving motor function and motor impairment after stroke. We also aimed to assess the effects of mirror therapy on activities of daily living, pain, and visuospatial neglect., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO and PEDro (last searched 16 August 2017). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, researchers and experts in our field of study., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised cross-over trials comparing mirror therapy with any control intervention for people after stroke., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials based on the inclusion criteria, documented the methodological quality, assessed risks of bias in the included studies, and extracted data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables, and as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables., Main Results: We included 62 studies with a total of 1982 participants that compared mirror therapy with other interventions. Of these, 57 were randomised controlled trials and five randomised cross-over trials. Participants had a mean age of 59 years (30 to 73 years). Mirror therapy was provided three to seven times a week, between 15 and 60 minutes for each session for two to eight weeks (on average five times a week, 30 minutes a session for four weeks).When compared with all other interventions, we found moderate-quality evidence that mirror therapy has a significant positive effect on motor function (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; 1173 participants; 36 studies) and motor impairment (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.66; 1292 participants; 39 studies). However, effects on motor function are influenced by the type of control intervention. Additionally, based on moderate-quality evidence, mirror therapy may improve activities of daily living (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.65; 622 participants; 19 studies). We found low-quality evidence for a significant positive effect on pain (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.11; 248 participants; 6 studies) and no clear effect for improving visuospatial neglect (SMD 1.06, 95% CI -0.10 to 2.23; 175 participants; 5 studies). No adverse effects were reported., Authors' Conclusions: The results indicate evidence for the effectiveness of mirror therapy for improving upper extremity motor function, motor impairment, activities of daily living, and pain, at least as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation for people after stroke. Major limitations are small sample sizes and lack of reporting of methodological details, resulting in uncertain evidence quality.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of individual or group mirror therapy on sensorimotor function, activities of daily living, quality of life and visuospatial neglect in patients with a severe arm paresis after stroke., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation centre., Subject: Sixty patients with a severe paresis of the arm within three months after stroke., Interventions: Three groups: (1) individual mirror therapy, (2) group mirror therapy and (3) control intervention with restricted view on the affected arm., Main Measures: Motor function on impairment (Fugl-Meyer Test) and activity level (Action Research Arm Test), independence in activities of daily living (Barthel Index), quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale) and visuospatial neglect (Star Cancellation Test)., Results: After five weeks, no significant group differences for motor function were found (P > 0.05). Pre-post differences for the Action Research Arm Test and Fugl-Meyer Test: individual mirror therapy: 3.4 (7.1) and 3.2 (3.8), group mirror therapy: 1.1 (3.1) and 5.1 (10.0) and control therapy: 2.8 (6.7) and 5.2 (8.7). However, a significant effect on visuospatial neglect for patients in the individual mirror therapy compared to control group could be shown (P < 0.01). Furthermore, it was possible to integrate a mirror therapy group intervention for severely affected patients after stroke., Conclusion: This study showed no effect on sensorimotor function of the arm, activities of daily living and quality of life of mirror therapy compared to a control intervention after stroke. However, a positive effect on visuospatial neglect was indicated.

Background: Mirror therapy is used to improve motor function after stroke. During mirror therapy, a mirror is placed in the patient's midsagittal plane, thus reflecting movements of the non-paretic side as if it were the affected side., Objectives: To summarise the effectiveness of mirror therapy for improving motor function, activities of daily living, pain and visuospatial neglect in patients after stroke., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (June 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2011), EMBASE (1980 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), AMED (1985 to June 2011), PsycINFO (1806 to June 2011) and PEDro (June 2011). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, trials and research registers, checked reference lists and contacted trialists, researchers and experts in our field of study., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised cross-over trials comparing mirror therapy with any control intervention for patients after stroke., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials based on the inclusion criteria, documented the methodological quality of studies and extracted data. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables., Main Results: We included 14 studies with a total of 567 participants that compared mirror therapy with other interventions. When compared with all other interventions, mirror therapy may have a significant effect on motor function (post-intervention data: SMD 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.0; P = 0.002; change scores: SMD 1.04; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.51; P < 0.0001). However, effects on motor function are influenced by the type of control intervention. Additionally, mirror therapy may improve activities of daily living (SMD 0.33; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60; P = 0.02). We found a significant positive effect on pain (SMD -1.10; 95% CI -2.10 to -0.09; P = 0.03) which is influenced by patient population. We found limited evidence for improving visuospatial neglect (SMD 1.22; 95% CI 0.24 to 2.19; P = 0.01). The effects on motor function were stable at follow-up assessment after six months., Authors' Conclusions: The results indicate evidence for the effectiveness of mirror therapy for improving upper extremity motor function, activities of daily living and pain, at least as an adjunct to normal rehabilitation for patients after stroke. Limitations are due to small sample sizes of most included studies, control interventions that are not used routinely in stroke rehabilitation and some methodological limitations of the studies.