The Effects of mirror therapy in postural and kinesthetic rehabilitation on stance phase of gait in subacute stroke
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: This study explored the effectiveness of mirror therapy in improving postural and kinesthetic rehabilitation during the stance phase of gait in subacute stroke patients. Given the crucial role of balance and functional recovery in enhancing mobility and overall quality of life in stroke survivors, the primary focus was on these aspects. Objective: The primary objective was to evaluate the impacts of mirror therapy on postural and kinesthetic rehabilitation during the stance phase of gait in subacute stroke patients. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted over nine months in Rahim Yar Khan, involving both private and government hospitals. Sixty-four participants were randomly assigned to two groups: the Conventional+KTR group and the Mirror Therapy group, with 32 participants in each. Inclusion criteria required participants to have a single episode of hemiplegic subacute stroke diagnosed by a neurologist, inclusion of both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, and sufficient cognitive ability to follow instructions as indicated by a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 24 or higher. Mild spasticity in all joints of the affected limb was defined by a Modified Ashworth Scale score of less than 3. The intervention for the experimental group involved mirror therapy conducted four days a week for six weeks, supplemented by a home plan for the remaining three days. The control group received conventional therapy, including proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and electrical interventions, also for four days a week, with a home plan for the remaining days. Key outcome measures were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) for balance and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for functional recovery. Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25, with significance set at p<0.05. Results: The Mirror Therapy group showed significantly greater improvements in balance scores, with a mean BBS of 40.31 at week 6 compared to 36.78 in the Conventional+KTR group (p<0.001). Functional recovery was more pronounced in the Conventional+KTR group, which had a mean Fugl-Meyer Assessment score of 35.63 at week 6 compared to 30.50 in the Mirror Therapy group (p<0.001). Gender distribution was similar across both groups, with the Conventional+KTR group consisting of 21.9% males and 78.1% females, and the Mirror Therapy group having 18.8% males and 81.3% females. Conclusion: Mirror therapy significantly enhances postural and kinesthetic rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients, particularly in improving balance more effectively than Conventional+KTR therapy. Conversely, Conventional+KTR therapy showed better results in functional recovery. These findings suggest that mirror therapy can be a valuable addition to stroke rehabilitation programs, offering a potential avenue for improved patient outcomes. Keywords: Mirror Therapy, Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation, Gait Improvement, Postural Awareness, Kinesthetic Awareness, Berg Balance Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Randomized Controlled Trial, Stroke Recovery, Balance Rehabilitation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».