A randomized controlled trial demonstrates enhanced motor ability and quality of life in chronic stroke patients with tailored therapy.
Background The upper extremity functional recovery remains a major challenge for specialists during post stroke rehabilitation, pertaining to adoption of various compensatory strategies by patients leading to motor redundancy and persistent functional limitations. Objectives The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Patient Tailored-Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy (mCIMT) combined with Trunk Restraint (TR) on Upper Extremity motor ability, balance, and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in chronic stroke survivors. Methods In this patient-blinded trial, 34 voluntary patients with chronic hemiplegia (>6 months post-stroke), aged 45–65 years, with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores > 24 having and spasticity graded 1 or 1 + on Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), were recruited and randomly allocated (1:1) to experimental or control groups. The experimental group received 60 min of Conventional Physical Therapy (CPT) plus 120 min of mCIMT with TR, while the control group received CPT treatment alone, three sessions per week for six consecutive weeks. Outcomes were assessed pre- and post-intervention using the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL). Results Both groups demonstrated significant improvements from baseline to post-intervention ( p < 0.01) across all outcome measures. However, the experimental group exhibited significantly greater gains in functional ability, as reflected by SS-QOL scores ( p < 0.005), compared to the control group. Conclusion Eighteen sessions of mCIMT along with TR, delivered over six weeks in combination with CPT, demonstrated significant improvements in all outcomes (WMFT, BBS, and SS-QOL) among chronic stroke patients and is as beneficial to individual rehabilitation as conventional therapy alone. Trial registry name and URL: ClinicalTrails.gov (Registration ID: NCT06692569)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shahhar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: