The Effects of mirror therapy in postural and kinesthetic rehabilitation on stance phase of gait in subacute stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".