Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Single-case experimental study assesses intervention effects on motor recovery in late subacute stroke, suggesting limited specific benefits.
Objective: This study aimed to determine whether robot-assisted therapy, low-frequency rTMS, or intensive therapist-guided upper-limb training provides additional recovery beyond self-directed training in individuals 4–9 months post-stroke. Design: A five-phase single-case experimental study was conducted with two baseline phases and three randomized 3-week intervention phases. Subjects/Patients: Sixteen adults with moderate-to-severe upper-limb motor impairment in the late subacute phase after stroke (4–9 months post-stroke) were included. Methods: Participants completed intensive task-oriented training, low-frequency rTMS, and robot-assisted therapy in a randomized order. Primary outcomes were Fugl–Meyer Assessment for the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), active range of motion, and muscle strength. Secondary outcomes included EQ-5D and WHODAS 2.0. Results: FMA-UE motor scores improved significantly over the study period (8–10 points). However, comparable gains occurred during baseline phases. rTMS and intensive training produced within-phase improvements, whereas robotic therapy did not. Participants with higher initial FMA-UE scores improved, while those with severe paresis showed minimal benefit and occasional decline during rTMS. Disability and quality-of-life measures remained stable. Gains were maintained at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: In the late subacute phase after stroke, modest upper-limb motor improvements occurred, but effects were not clearly attributable to specific interventions beyond ongoing recovery. Treatment response depended strongly on baseline motor severity, with limited benefit in severe paresis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heikkila et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: