Cerebrovascular AccidentNCT01655446
Effects of RR and MT on Patient With Stroke
A study testing Mirror Therapy, Conventional Rehabilitation and Robotic Rehabilitation in people with Cerebrovascular Accident, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.
Trial summary
The purpose of this proposal is 1) to compare the relative effects of the robotic rehabilitation (RR), mirror therapy (MT), and conventional intervention (CI), 2) to compare the effects of the combined therapy of the RR-Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and the RR-Placebo Intervention (PI), and 3) to identify… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Cerebrovascular Accident
- What is being tested?
- Mirror Therapy, Conventional Rehabilitation and Robotic Rehabilitation
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTaiwan
- Study dates
- Aug 2011to Jul 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 40 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Willing to provide the written informed consent
- More than 6 months onset of unilateral stroke
- An initial 25-56 or 18-50 scores on the UE subtest of the FMA
- Sufficient cognitive ability (Mini Mental State Examination ≧ 24 points)
- Without upper limb fracture within 3 months
Who cannot join
- Recurrent of stroke or seizure episode during the intervention
- Occurence of serious or continuous pain on affected upper-extremity
- History of other neurological disease or severe orthopaedic condition
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Taiwan1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
National Taiwan University Hospital
Taipei
Keh-chung Lin, ScD, 886-2-33668180, kehchunglin@ntu.edu.tw
Keh-chung Lin, ScD
About this study
Official title: Randomized Trials of Robotic Rehabilitation, Mirror Therapy, and Dose-Matched Control Intervention for Upper-Limb Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Stroke: Comparative Efficacy and Clinimetric Study
The purpose of this proposal is 1) to compare the relative effects of the robotic rehabilitation (RR), mirror therapy (MT), and conventional intervention (CI), 2) to compare the effects of the combined therapy of the RR-Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and the RR-Placebo Intervention (PI), and 3) to identify the clinical predictors that will potentially influence the functional outcomes after interventions.
Read the detailed description
Motor deficit of upper extremity is one of the prominent problems in patients with stroke. Looking for effective and efficient treatments to improve affected UE function is of great importance in the field of rehabilitation. Two emerging movement therapies in stroke rehabilitation are robotic rehabilitation (RR) and mirror therapy (MT). Scientific evidence for comparative effectiveness research of RR versus MT versus CI on functional outcomes (e.g., motor, muscle, sensory, and daily functions) in stroke patients is limited. In addition, studies showed FES induced some improvements in individual movements at the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers or in muscle strength in patients with moderate-to-severe paresis. The combination therapy of the FES and training protocols may increase the benefits of standard rehabilitative treatments and may also facilitate motor learning. However, the combined training effects of the RR and FES on stroke patients have not been well studies in a larger sample yet. Specific objectives of this proposed research are as follows: First, The investigators will compare the efficacy of the RR, MT, and conventional rehabilitation. Secondly, the investigators will compare the efficacy of the RR-FES versus RR-PI on outcome measures. Thirdly, the investigators will identify the clinical predictors that will potentially influence the functional outcomes after interventions.
- Conditions
- Cerebrovascular Accident
- Being tested
- Mirror Therapy, Conventional Rehabilitation, Robotic Rehabilitation, Robotic rehabilitation with FES, Robotic Rehabilitation with PI
- Keywords
- Comparative effectiveness research, Robotic rehabilitation, Mirror therapy, Functional electrical therapy, Combined therapy, Stroke rehabilitation, Translational science
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Mirror TherapyBehavioural
Also called MT
This protocol includes 1 hour mirror therapy and 0.5 hour functional training in a session. The treatment intensity is 1.5 hours/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks. MT focuses on symmetrical bimanual movements and simultaneously observing the mirror visual feedback reflected by the unaffected upper extremity.
Conventional RehabilitationBehavioural
Also called CR, Control Treatment, CT
Participants in this group receive a structured protocol based on occupational therapy such as neuro-developmental techniques and task-oriented approach. The treatment dose is matched to RR and MT groups.
Robotic RehabilitationBehavioural
Also called RR, Robotic Therapy, RT
This protocol includes 5 to 10 min of warm-up, 1 hr of RR, and 15 to 20 min of functional activities training. The treatment intensity is 1.5 hours/day, 5days/week for 4 consecutive weeks. The RR session uses the robot-assisted arm trainer, Bi-Manu-Track (Reha-Stim Co., Berlin, Germany).
Robotic rehabilitation with FESBehavioural
Also called RR-Functional Electrical Stimulation, RR combined Functional Electrical Stimulation, RR-FES
This combined RR-FES treatment involves the same protocol as the RR regimen except that patients receive FES concurrently with RR.
Robotic Rehabilitation with PIBehavioural
Also called Robotic Rehabilitation-PI, RR with Placebo Intervention, RR-PI
The RR-PI protocol is the same as the RR-FES protocol described above except that the surface electrodes are attached to the same target muscles on the affected UL but there is no output of electrical stimulation.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Robotic Rehabilitation with FES | Experimental | Robotic rehabilitation combined Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Receives: Behavioral: Robotic rehabilitation with FES |
| Mirror Therapy | Experimental | Mirror Therapy (MT) Receives: Behavioral: Mirror Therapy |
| Conventional Rehabilitation | Active comparator | Conventional Rehabilitation (CR) mainly focuses on occupational therapy training Receives: Behavioral: Conventional Rehabilitation |
| Robotic Rehabilitation | Experimental | Robotic Rehabilitation (RR) Receives: Behavioral: Robotic Rehabilitation |
| Robotic Rehabilitation with PI | Placebo comparator | Robotic rehabilitation with Placebo Intervention (RR-PI) Receives: Behavioral: Robotic Rehabilitation with PI |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
The upper-extremity subscale of the FMA contains 33 items to assess motor impairment. Each item is scored on a 3-point ordinal scale (0-cannot perform, 1-performs partially, 2-performs fully and correctly).
Measured: Change from baseline in FMA at 4 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 8 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 16 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 28 weeks
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
The MAS is a 5-point ordinal scale to evaluate muscle tone of upper-extremity. Higher score indicates a more severe hypertonia.
Measured: Change from baseline in MAS at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MAS at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MAS at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MAS at 28 weeks
Functional independence measure (FIM)
The FIM consists of 18 items grouped into 6 subscales measuring self-care, sphincter control, transfer, locomotion, communication, and social cognition ability. Each item is rated from 1 to 7 based on the required level of assistance to perform the tasks.
Measured: Change from baseline in FIM at 4 weeks, change from baseline in FIM at 8 weeks, change from baseline in FIM at 16 weeks, change from baseline in FIM at 28 weeks
Movement units (MU)
The parameter of movement units is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. One acceleration phase and one deceleration phase constitute a MU. The number of MU indicates the movement smoothness.
Measured: Change from baseline in MU at 4 weeks
Total displacement (TD)
The TD is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. TD refers to the path of a hand shifting in three-dimensional space and is a measurement of trajectory smoothness.
Measured: Change from baseline in TD at 4 weeks
Percentage of peak velocity (PPV)
PPV is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. PPV indicates the percentage of acceleration phase among the whole movement process. It is an outcome measurement of pre-motor planning ability.
Measured: Change from baseline in PPV at 4 weeks
Reaction time (RT)
The reaction time is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. RT is the time required to prepare a motor response toward an external signal and indicates speed of motor planning.
Measured: Change from baseline in RT at 4 weeks
Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
The ARAT assesses the ability to handle objects with 19 items divided into 4 subscales of grasp, grip, pinch, and gross movement by 4-level ordinal scale. Higher the score, better the performance.
Measured: Change from baseline in ARAT at 4 weeks, change from baseline in ARAT at 8 weeks, change from baseline in ARAT at 16 weeks, change from baseline in ARAT at 28 weeks
Medical Research Council scale (MRC)
The MRC scale assesses muscle power with scores ranging from 0 (no contraction) to 5 (normal power). The muscle strength of shoulder flexors/abductors, elbow flexors/extensors, wrist flexors/extensors, and finger extensors are graded.
Measured: Change from baseline in MRC at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MRC at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MRC at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MRC at 28 weeks
MYOTON-3
MYOTON-3 is used to assess muscle tone of the affected upper limb. There are three measurement parameters in the MYOTON-3: F - Frequency, Hz, characterizing muscle tone; D - Decrement, characterizing muscle elasticity; and S - Stiffness, N/m, characterizing muscle stiffness.
Measured: Change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 28 weeks
Accelerometers
Accelerometers are used to provide a direct and objective measure of the amount of the impaired arm movement outside the laboratory. In this project, acceleration is sampled at 10 Hz and summed over a user- specified epoch. The recording epoch in this study is 2 seconds; recording capacity is approximately 72 hours.
Measured: Change from baseline in accelerometers at 4 weeks, change from baseline in accelerometers at 8 weeks, change from baseline in accelerometers at 16 weeks, change from baseline in accelerometers at 28 weeks
Peak velocity (PV)
PPV is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. PV corresponds to the changeover from the acceleration to the deceleration phase and is related to the force produced.
Measured: Change from baseline in PV at 4 weeks
Trunk related Kinematic variables
The parameter of movement units is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. These parameters include trunk displacement, trunk flexion angular change, trunk-arm delay, shoulder flexion \& trunk flexion correlation, and elbow extension \& trunk flexion correlation. These variables indicate the degree of trunk compensatory movement and interjoint coordination.
Measured: Change from baseline in trunk related kinematic variables at 4 weeks
Secondary outcomes (8)
Motor Activity Log (MAL)
The MAL is a semi-structured interview of patients to assess the amount of use (AOU) and quality of movement (QOM) of the affected upper extremity in 30 important daily activities using a 6-point ordinal scale. Higher scores indicate superior amount and quality of use in affected upper extremity.
Measured: Change from baseline in MAL at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MAL at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MAL at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MAL at 28 weeks
ABILHAND Questionnaire
The ABILHAND is an inventory of 56 manual activities measuring the patient's perceived difficulty in daily activities.
Measured: Change from baseline in ABILHAND at 4 weeks, change from baseline in ABILHAND at 8 weeks, change from baseline in ABILHAND at 16 weeks, change from baseline in ABILHAND at 28 weeks
Stroke Impact Scale Version 3.0 (SIS 3.0)
The SIS 3.0 is a stroke-specific instrument of health-related quality of life and contains 59 items measuring 8 domains. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale with lower scores indicate greater difficulty in task completion during the past week. Aggregate scores, ranges from 0 to 100, are generated for each domain.
Measured: Change from baseline in SIS at 4 weeks, change from baseline in SIS at 8 weeks, change from baseline in SIS at 16 weeks, change from baseline in SIS at 28 weeks
Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale (NEADL)
The NEADL consists of 22 activity items, scoring on the basis of the required level of assistance. The range of total score is 0-66, and higher score representing better function.
Measured: Change from baseline in NEADL at 4 weeks, change from baseline in NEADL at 8 weeks, change from baseline in NEADL at 16 weeks, change from baseline in NEADL at 28 weeks
revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment (rNSA)
The rNSA examines the sensory function of the affected arm and includes tactile sensation, proprioception, and stereognosis subtests.
Measured: Change from baseline in rNSA at 4 weeks, change from baseline in rNSA at 8 weeks, change from baseline in rNSA at 16 weeks, change from baseline in rNSA at 28 weeks
Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Sensory (FMA-S)
The FMA-S contains 12 three-point items, four for light touch and eight for position sense. The total score ranges from 0 to 24. The sensation for light touch will be estimated subjectively. The patient will be asked whether he or she feels that light touches on both arms and the palmar surface of the hands give the same qualitative and quantitative impressions. The position sense of the joints will involve tests for interphalangeal joint of the thumb, the wrist, the elbow, and the shoulder joint
Measured: Change from baseline in FMA-S at 4 weeks, change from baseline in FMA-S at 8 weeks, change from baseline in FMA-S at 16 weeks, change from baseline in FMA-S at 28 weeks
8-OHdG: A Biomarker of Oxidative Stress
Urinary 8-OHdG is a stable and integral biomarker of oxidative DNA damage. About 10 mL to 15 mL urine samples of the patients are collected in the centrifugal tubes before and after rehabilitation interventions. The samples is transported with dry ice under 4°C and preserved in a -80°C refrigerator before analysis. A highly sensitive and selective method, using isotope- dilution liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS), is used to determine the urinary 8-OHdG levels.
Measured: Change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 4 weeks, change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 8 weeks, change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 16 weeks, change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 28 weeks
Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory (MFSI)
The general subscale of the MFSI is used to measure general fatigue of the patients. It includes 6 items with a total score ranging from 0 (not at all) to 24 (extremely).
Measured: Change from baseline in MFSI at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MFSI at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MFSI at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MFSI at 28 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Aug 2012 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2011
- Primary completionJul 2014 (estimated)
- Study completionJul 2014 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cerebrovascular AccidentStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by National Taiwan University HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- National Taiwan University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Keh-chung Lin, ScD, Principal investigator, School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01655446
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 201012131RB
- Status last verified
- Jul 2012
- First submitted
- 19 Jul 2012
- Last updated
- 1 Aug 2012
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Lee YY, Lin KC, Cheng HJ, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Chen CK. Effects of combining robot-assisted therapy with neuromuscular electrical stimulation on motor impairment, motor and daily function, and quality of life in patients with chronic stroke: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Oct 31;12:96. doi: 10.1186/s12984-015-0088-3.
PubMed 26520398
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Aug 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Trials of Robotic Rehabilitation, Mirror Therapy, and Dose-Matched Control Intervention for Upper-Limb Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Stroke: Comparative Efficacy and Clinimetric Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01655446
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 201012131RB
- Conditions
- Cerebrovascular Accident
- Keywords
- Comparative effectiveness research, Robotic rehabilitation, Mirror therapy, Functional electrical therapy, Combined therapy, Stroke rehabilitation, Translational science
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- National Taiwan University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2011
- Primary completion
- Jul 2014 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jul 2014 (estimated)
- First posted
- 1 Aug 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this proposal is 1) to compare the relative effects of the robotic rehabilitation (RR), mirror therapy (MT), and conventional intervention (CI), 2) to compare the effects of the combined therapy of the RR-Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) and the RR-Placebo Intervention (PI), and 3) to identify the clinical predictors that will potentially influence the functional outcomes after interventions.
Detailed description
Motor deficit of upper extremity is one of the prominent problems in patients with stroke. Looking for effective and efficient treatments to improve affected UE function is of great importance in the field of rehabilitation. Two emerging movement therapies in stroke rehabilitation are robotic rehabilitation (RR) and mirror therapy (MT). Scientific evidence for comparative effectiveness research of RR versus MT versus CI on functional outcomes (e.g., motor, muscle, sensory, and daily functions) in stroke patients is limited. In addition, studies showed FES induced some improvements in individual movements at the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers or in muscle strength in patients with moderate-to-severe paresis. The combination therapy of the FES and training protocols may increase the benefits of standard rehabilitative treatments and may also facilitate motor learning. However, the combined training effects of the RR and FES on stroke patients have not been well studies in a larger sample yet. Specific objectives of this proposed research are as follows: First, The investigators will compare the efficacy of the RR, MT, and conventional rehabilitation. Secondly, the investigators will compare the efficacy of the RR-FES versus RR-PI on outcome measures. Thirdly, the investigators will identify the clinical predictors that will potentially influence the functional outcomes after interventions.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Robotic Rehabilitation with FES | Experimental | Behavioral: Robotic rehabilitation with FESRobotic rehabilitation combined Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) |
| Mirror Therapy | Experimental | Behavioral: Mirror TherapyMirror Therapy (MT) |
| Conventional Rehabilitation | Active comparator | Behavioral: Conventional RehabilitationConventional Rehabilitation (CR) mainly focuses on occupational therapy training |
| Robotic Rehabilitation | Experimental | Behavioral: Robotic RehabilitationRobotic Rehabilitation (RR) |
| Robotic Rehabilitation with PI | Placebo comparator | Behavioral: Robotic Rehabilitation with PIRobotic rehabilitation with Placebo Intervention (RR-PI) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Willing to provide the written informed consent
- More than 6 months onset of unilateral stroke
- An initial 25-56 or 18-50 scores on the UE subtest of the FMA
- Sufficient cognitive ability (Mini Mental State Examination ≧ 24 points)
- Without upper limb fracture within 3 months
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Recurrent of stroke or seizure episode during the intervention
- Occurence of serious or continuous pain on affected upper-extremity
- History of other neurological disease or severe orthopaedic condition
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Mirror TherapyAlso: MTThis protocol includes 1 hour mirror therapy and 0.5 hour functional training in a session. The treatment intensity is 1.5 hours/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks. MT focuses on symmetrical bimanual movements and simultaneously observing the mirror visual feedback reflected by the unaffected upper extremity. | Behavioural | Mirror Therapy |
| Conventional RehabilitationAlso: CR, Control Treatment, CTParticipants in this group receive a structured protocol based on occupational therapy such as neuro-developmental techniques and task-oriented approach. The treatment dose is matched to RR and MT groups. | Behavioural | Conventional Rehabilitation |
| Robotic RehabilitationAlso: RR, Robotic Therapy, RTThis protocol includes 5 to 10 min of warm-up, 1 hr of RR, and 15 to 20 min of functional activities training. The treatment intensity is 1.5 hours/day, 5days/week for 4 consecutive weeks. The RR session uses the robot-assisted arm trainer, Bi-Manu-Track (Reha-Stim Co., Berlin, Germany). | Behavioural | Robotic Rehabilitation |
| Robotic rehabilitation with FESAlso: RR-Functional Electrical Stimulation, RR combined Functional Electrical Stimulation, RR-FESThis combined RR-FES treatment involves the same protocol as the RR regimen except that patients receive FES concurrently with RR. | Behavioural | Robotic Rehabilitation with FES |
| Robotic Rehabilitation with PIAlso: Robotic Rehabilitation-PI, RR with Placebo Intervention, RR-PIThe RR-PI protocol is the same as the RR-FES protocol described above except that the surface electrodes are attached to the same target muscles on the affected UL but there is no output of electrical stimulation. | Behavioural | Robotic Rehabilitation with PI |
Primary outcome
Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
Time frame: Change from baseline in FMA at 4 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 8 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 16 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 28 weeks
The upper-extremity subscale of the FMA contains 33 items to assess motor impairment. Each item is scored on a 3-point ordinal scale (0-cannot perform, 1-performs partially, 2-performs fully and correctly).
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
Time frame: Change from baseline in MAS at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MAS at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MAS at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MAS at 28 weeks
The MAS is a 5-point ordinal scale to evaluate muscle tone of upper-extremity. Higher score indicates a more severe hypertonia.
Functional independence measure (FIM)
Time frame: Change from baseline in FIM at 4 weeks, change from baseline in FIM at 8 weeks, change from baseline in FIM at 16 weeks, change from baseline in FIM at 28 weeks
The FIM consists of 18 items grouped into 6 subscales measuring self-care, sphincter control, transfer, locomotion, communication, and social cognition ability. Each item is rated from 1 to 7 based on the required level of assistance to perform the tasks.
Movement units (MU)
Time frame: Change from baseline in MU at 4 weeks
The parameter of movement units is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. One acceleration phase and one deceleration phase constitute a MU. The number of MU indicates the movement smoothness.
Total displacement (TD)
Time frame: Change from baseline in TD at 4 weeks
The TD is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. TD refers to the path of a hand shifting in three-dimensional space and is a measurement of trajectory smoothness.
Percentage of peak velocity (PPV)
Time frame: Change from baseline in PPV at 4 weeks
PPV is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. PPV indicates the percentage of acceleration phase among the whole movement process. It is an outcome measurement of pre-motor planning ability.
Reaction time (RT)
Time frame: Change from baseline in RT at 4 weeks
The reaction time is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. RT is the time required to prepare a motor response toward an external signal and indicates speed of motor planning.
Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)
Time frame: Change from baseline in ARAT at 4 weeks, change from baseline in ARAT at 8 weeks, change from baseline in ARAT at 16 weeks, change from baseline in ARAT at 28 weeks
The ARAT assesses the ability to handle objects with 19 items divided into 4 subscales of grasp, grip, pinch, and gross movement by 4-level ordinal scale. Higher the score, better the performance.
Medical Research Council scale (MRC)
Time frame: Change from baseline in MRC at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MRC at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MRC at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MRC at 28 weeks
The MRC scale assesses muscle power with scores ranging from 0 (no contraction) to 5 (normal power). The muscle strength of shoulder flexors/abductors, elbow flexors/extensors, wrist flexors/extensors, and finger extensors are graded.
MYOTON-3
Time frame: Change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MYOTON-3 at 28 weeks
MYOTON-3 is used to assess muscle tone of the affected upper limb. There are three measurement parameters in the MYOTON-3: F - Frequency, Hz, characterizing muscle tone; D - Decrement, characterizing muscle elasticity; and S - Stiffness, N/m, characterizing muscle stiffness.
Accelerometers
Time frame: Change from baseline in accelerometers at 4 weeks, change from baseline in accelerometers at 8 weeks, change from baseline in accelerometers at 16 weeks, change from baseline in accelerometers at 28 weeks
Accelerometers are used to provide a direct and objective measure of the amount of the impaired arm movement outside the laboratory. In this project, acceleration is sampled at 10 Hz and summed over a user- specified epoch. The recording epoch in this study is 2 seconds; recording capacity is approximately 72 hours.
Peak velocity (PV)
Time frame: Change from baseline in PV at 4 weeks
PPV is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. PV corresponds to the changeover from the acceleration to the deceleration phase and is related to the force produced.
Trunk related Kinematic variables
Time frame: Change from baseline in trunk related kinematic variables at 4 weeks
The parameter of movement units is collected by a 7-camera motion analysis system (VICON MX 3-D, Oxford Metrics Inc., Oxford, UK) from unilateral and bilateral reaching tasks of pressing the desk bell. These parameters include trunk displacement, trunk flexion angular change, trunk-arm delay, shoulder flexion \& trunk flexion correlation, and elbow extension \& trunk flexion correlation. These variables indicate the degree of trunk compensatory movement and interjoint coordination.
8 secondary outcomes
Motor Activity Log (MAL)
Time frame: Change from baseline in MAL at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MAL at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MAL at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MAL at 28 weeks
ABILHAND Questionnaire
Time frame: Change from baseline in ABILHAND at 4 weeks, change from baseline in ABILHAND at 8 weeks, change from baseline in ABILHAND at 16 weeks, change from baseline in ABILHAND at 28 weeks
Stroke Impact Scale Version 3.0 (SIS 3.0)
Time frame: Change from baseline in SIS at 4 weeks, change from baseline in SIS at 8 weeks, change from baseline in SIS at 16 weeks, change from baseline in SIS at 28 weeks
Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale (NEADL)
Time frame: Change from baseline in NEADL at 4 weeks, change from baseline in NEADL at 8 weeks, change from baseline in NEADL at 16 weeks, change from baseline in NEADL at 28 weeks
revised Nottingham Sensory Assessment (rNSA)
Time frame: Change from baseline in rNSA at 4 weeks, change from baseline in rNSA at 8 weeks, change from baseline in rNSA at 16 weeks, change from baseline in rNSA at 28 weeks
Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Sensory (FMA-S)
Time frame: Change from baseline in FMA-S at 4 weeks, change from baseline in FMA-S at 8 weeks, change from baseline in FMA-S at 16 weeks, change from baseline in FMA-S at 28 weeks
8-OHdG: A Biomarker of Oxidative Stress
Time frame: Change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 4 weeks, change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 8 weeks, change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 16 weeks, change from baseline in 8-OHdG at 28 weeks
Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory (MFSI)
Time frame: Change from baseline in MFSI at 4 weeks, change from baseline in MFSI at 8 weeks, change from baseline in MFSI at 16 weeks, change from baseline in MFSI at 28 weeks
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Aug 2012.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 26520398Lee YY, Lin KC, Cheng HJ, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Chen CK. Effects of combining robot-assisted therapy with neuromuscular electrical stimulation on motor impairment, motor and daily function, and quality of life in patients with chronic stroke: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Oct 31;12:96. doi: 10.1186/s12984-015-0088-3.
Related trials for Cerebrovascular Accident
Not yet recruiting
Temporal Interference Stimulation for Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in Early Subacute Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
ELATE Study: Evaluating Large-vessel Acute Thrombectomy in Extended Time Window
Acute Ichemic Stroke
Recruiting
Web-Based Tele-Rehabilitation Using Action Observation and Mirror Therapy for Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Stroke, Upper Extremity Paresis
Recruiting
Early Motor-Cognitive Integrative Training on Cognitive and Motor Performance in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Subarachnoid Aneurysm Hemorrhage
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Keh-chung Lin, ScD principal investigator
School of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Mirror Therapy, Conventional Rehabilitation and Robotic Rehabilitation in people with Cerebrovascular Accident, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Aug 2012. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Taiwan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Keh-chung Lin, ScD (886-2-33668180, kehchunglin@ntu.edu.tw), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) (time frame: Change from baseline in FMA at 4 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 8 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 16 weeks, change from baseline in FMA at 28 weeks). The study lists 13 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01655446, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Aug 2012.