Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-week multimodal neuro-physiotherapy programme combining task-specific training, mirror therapy, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) on upper limb motor function, spasticity, balance, and gait speed in patients with subacute stroke. Methods: A quasi-experimental, one-group pretest-posttest study was conducted on 40 subacute stroke patients (2 weeks to 3 months post-stroke) recruited by purposive sampling from neuro-rehabilitation centres in Surat, Gujarat. Participants received 60-75-minute sessions, 5 days/week for 6 weeks, combining mirror therapy, PNF, and task-specific training with balance and gait training. Outcomes-Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and 10-Meter Walk Test (10MWT)-were recorded at baseline and after 6 weeks by a blinded assessor and compared using paired t-tests (α = 0.05). Results: Mean age was 57.6 ± 8.9 years (65% male; 70% ischaemic stroke). All four outcomes improved significantly (p < 0.001): FMA-UE rose from 28.4 ± 9.7 to 45.2 ± 8.5 (mean difference 16.8, 95% CI 14.1–19.5); MAS fell from 2.4 ± 0.6 to 1.3 ± 0.5 (mean difference –1.1, 95% CI –1.33 to –0.87); BBS rose from 31.2 ± 7.8 to 46.5 ± 6.4 (mean difference 15.3, 95% CI 13.2–17.4); and 10MWT gait speed rose from 0.42 ± 0.18 to 0.68 ± 0.15 m/s (mean difference 0.26, 95% CI 0.21–0.31). Cohen's d ranged from 1.56 to 2.31 (large effects) across all outcomes. Conclusion: A structured 6-week multimodal programme combining task-specific training, mirror therapy, and PNF was associated with large, statistically significant gains in upper limb function, spasticity, balance, and gait speed in subacute stroke patients. In the absence of a control group, these gains cannot be fully separated from spontaneous neurological recovery; controlled trials are needed before the protocol can be recommended as superior to conventional therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gokhru et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: