StrokeNCT04441437
The Efficacy of Dynamic Hand Splint Treatment in Spastic Hemiparetic Patients
A study testing Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splint and Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splint in people with Stroke and Brain Injuries, run by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.
Trial summary
The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was designed to study the efficacy of dynamic hand splinting on spastic hemiparetic patients due to stroke or traumatic brain injury. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke, Brain Injuries
- What is being tested?
- Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splint and Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splint
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 35 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 4 Nov 2016to 22 Mar 2019
- 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 20 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- an age of 20 to 85 years
- the duration of stroke or brain injury more than 6 months
- unilateral hemiparesis with intact sound side limbs function
- the Brunnstrom's stage of both arm and hand ≥ III
- able to follow instructions, wear a dynamic hand splint and perform therapeutic activities
- wrist spasticity with a Modified Ashworth Scale score 1-3
- willing to provide the written informed consent.
Who cannot join
- patients with apraxia
- cognitive impairment with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score < 25
- any fixed contracture of the affected wrist or fingers
- a history of peripheral nerve injury, other severe neuromuscular disease or musculoskeletal deformity change in the affected side upper extremity
- a history of alcohol or phenol injection to the affected side upper extremity
- Botulinum toxin injection to the affected side upper extremity for the treatment of spasticity within 4 months before the study
Show all 11Show fewer
- surgical treatment for spasticity to the affected side upper extremity
- active infection
- obvious atrophy of muscles in the affected side upper extremity
- bilateral upper extremities weakness
- any dermatosis or open wounds in the affected upper extremity or an allergy to the splint.
About this study
Official title: The Efficacy of Dynamic Hand Splint Treatment in Spastic Hemiparetic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was designed to study the efficacy of dynamic hand splinting on spastic hemiparetic patients due to stroke or traumatic brain injury.
Read the detailed description
Subjects were recruited from both inpatients and outpatients who received rehabilitation programs in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: the splint group and the control group. The subjects in the splint group received 1-hour task-oriented training with wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month plus conventional rehabilitation programs. The subjects in the control group received the same treatments but without splint used. Evaluations including Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), active range of motion (AROM), grip strength, Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Motor Activity Log 30(MAL), and F/M ratio were performed at baseline, post-training, and 2 months later after the intervention finished, and the evaluators were blinded to the grouping of the subjects.
- Conditions
- Stroke, Brain Injuries
- Being tested
- Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splint, Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splint
- Keywords
- spasticity, dynamic hand splint, stroke, traumatic brain injury
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke, Brain Injuries, Muscle Spasticity, Brain Injuries, Traumatic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splintBehavioural
In addition to conventional rehabilitation programs (therapy-as-usual), the subject in the splint group received 1-hour task-oriented training with wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. The content of task-oriented training contained picking cubes from side to side with three-jaw grasp, lifting the cone to the shoulder height with the cylindrical grip and an extended elbow, picking up pegs and inserting it into the hole with palmar pinch, and grasping a soap to simulate wiping the body. Among the four tasks, two were chosen to train the subjects according to the abilities of subjects.
Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splintBehavioural
In addition to conventional rehabilitation programs (therapy-as-usual), the subject in the no-splint group received 1-hour task-oriented training, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. The content of task-oriented training contained picking cubes from side to side with three-jaw grasp, lifting the cone to the shoulder height with the cylindrical grip and an extended elbow, picking up pegs and inserting it into the hole with palmar pinch, and grasping a soap to simulate wiping the body. Among the four tasks, two were chosen to train the subjects according to the abilities of subjects.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Splint Group | Experimental | 1-hour task-oriented training with wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. Receives: Behavioral: Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splint |
| No-Splint Group | Placebo comparator | 1-hour task-oriented training without wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. Receives: Behavioral: Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splint |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
A participant was made in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table. Then his or her 2nd to 5th fingers was moved by the examiner from maximum possible flexion to maximum possible extension over a duration of about one second. All of the four fingers were done at once. The participant's wrist and elbow were then also tested in the same manner. The lowest score was zero and the highest score was 415. For statistical purposes, the MAS score '1+' is considered as 2, '2' as 3, and so on until 5.
Measured: Performed at baseline
Post-training Change of Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
A participant was made in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table. Then his or her 2nd to 5th fingers was moved by the examiner from maximum possible flexion to maximum possible extension over a duration of about one second. All of the four fingers were done at once. The participant's wrist and elbow were then also tested in the same manner. The lowest score was zero and the highest score was 415. For statistical purposes, the MAS score '1+' is considered as 2, '2' as 3, and so on until 5.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 30 days
3-Month Follow-up Change of Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
A participant was made in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table. Then his or her 2nd to 5th fingers was moved by the examiner from maximum possible flexion to maximum possible extension over a duration of about one second. All of the four fingers were done at once. The participant's wrist and elbow were then also tested in the same manner. The lowest score was zero and the highest score was 415. For statistical purposes, the MAS score '1+' is considered as 2, '2' as 3, and so on until 5.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 90 days
Active range of motion (AROM)
A participant in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table was instructed to actively move his or her fingers and wrists as much as possible. Then the AROM of the index finger and wrist were measured by a goniometer.
Measured: Performed at baseline
Post-training Change of Active range of motion (AROM)
A participant in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table was instructed to actively move his or her fingers and wrists as much as possible. Then the AROM of the index finger and wrist were measured by a goniometer.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 30 days
3-Month Follow-up Change of Active range of motion (AROM)
A participant in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table was instructed to actively move his or her fingers and wrists as much as possible. Then the AROM of the index finger and wrist were measured by a goniometer.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 90 days
Grip strength
For the grip strength measurement, a participant in sitting position was instructed to squeeze a dynamometer with the unaffected hand as hard as he or she can for about 3 seconds. Then the hand of affected side was tested in the same manner. Three consecutive measurements with a 3-minute interval were performed for each hand and the arithmetic mean value of the 3 trials was used for statistical analysis.
Measured: Performed at baseline
Post-training Change of Grip strength
For the grip strength measurement, a participant in sitting position was instructed to squeeze a dynamometer with the unaffected hand as hard as he or she can for about 3 seconds. Then the hand of affected side was tested in the same manner. Three consecutive measurements with a 3-minute interval were performed for each hand and the arithmetic mean value of the 3 trials was used for statistical analysis.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 30 days
3-Month Follow-up Change of Grip strength
For the grip strength measurement, a participant in sitting position was instructed to squeeze a dynamometer with the unaffected hand as hard as he or she can for about 3 seconds. Then the hand of affected side was tested in the same manner. Three consecutive measurements with a 3-minute interval were performed for each hand and the arithmetic mean value of the 3 trials was used for statistical analysis.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 90 days
Motor Activity Log 30(MAL)
Using the standardized questions from the upper-extremity MAL, a participant was rated how much (Amount of Use scale, MAL-AOU) and how well (Quality of Movement scale, MAL-QOM) he or she used the upper limb of affected side to accomplish each functional activity during the past week. Both scales were anchored at 6 points (AOU scale: 0 = not used, 5 = the same as before stroke or brain injury; QOM scale: 0 = not used, 5 = normal).17, 18 A mean MAL score is the mean of all item scores.
Measured: Performed at baseline
Post-training Change of Motor Activity Log 30(MAL)
Using the standardized questions from the upper-extremity MAL, a participant was rated how much (Amount of Use scale, MAL-AOU) and how well (Quality of Movement scale, MAL-QOM) he or she used the upper limb of affected side to accomplish each functional activity during the past week. Both scales were anchored at 6 points (AOU scale: 0 = not used, 5 = the same as before stroke or brain injury; QOM scale: 0 = not used, 5 = normal).17, 18 A mean MAL score is the mean of all item scores.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 30 days
3-Month Follow-up Change of Motor Activity Log 30(MAL)
Using the standardized questions from the upper-extremity MAL, a participant was rated how much (Amount of Use scale, MAL-AOU) and how well (Quality of Movement scale, MAL-QOM) he or she used the upper limb of affected side to accomplish each functional activity during the past week. Both scales were anchored at 6 points (AOU scale: 0 = not used, 5 = the same as before stroke or brain injury; QOM scale: 0 = not used, 5 = normal).17, 18 A mean MAL score is the mean of all item scores.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 90 days
Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
For the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA), a 3-graded scale with 0 as minimum and 2 as maximum was applied for grading of sensorimotor function.19 The testing procedure was conducted in a standardized manner according to the written instructions originally published and some additional general guidelines.20, 21 For motor function assessment, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE) was used. Clear and precise instructions were given to a seated participant for each movement. The unaffected side simulated first and then the affected side was evaluated. Each activity was repeated 3 times and the highest score was recorded. The maximum total score was 66. For sensory function assessment, the Modified Fugl-Meyer sensory assessment (FMA-sensory) was used. This included tests of the light touch, temperature, tactile localization and position sensation of the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, calf and foot of the affected side. The maximum total score was 44.
Measured: Performed at baseline
Post-training Change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
For the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA), a 3-graded scale with 0 as minimum and 2 as maximum was applied for grading of sensorimotor function.19 The testing procedure was conducted in a standardized manner according to the written instructions originally published and some additional general guidelines.20, 21 For motor function assessment, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE) was used. Clear and precise instructions were given to a seated participant for each movement. The unaffected side simulated first and then the affected side was evaluated. Each activity was repeated 3 times and the highest score was recorded. The maximum total score was 66. For sensory function assessment, the Modified Fugl-Meyer sensory assessment (FMA-sensory) was used. This included tests of the light touch, temperature, tactile localization and position sensation of the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, calf and foot of the affected side. The maximum total score was 44.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 30 days
3-Month Follow-up Change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
For the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA), a 3-graded scale with 0 as minimum and 2 as maximum was applied for grading of sensorimotor function.19 The testing procedure was conducted in a standardized manner according to the written instructions originally published and some additional general guidelines.20, 21 For motor function assessment, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE) was used. Clear and precise instructions were given to a seated participant for each movement. The unaffected side simulated first and then the affected side was evaluated. Each activity was repeated 3 times and the highest score was recorded. The maximum total score was 66. For sensory function assessment, the Modified Fugl-Meyer sensory assessment (FMA-sensory) was used. This included tests of the light touch, temperature, tactile localization and position sensation of the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, calf and foot of the affected side. The maximum total score was 44.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 90 days
F/M ratio of ulnar nerve
An electrophysiological examination was performed with an active recording surface electrode (G1) placed over the belly of the abductor digiti minimi of the affected side, a reference electrode (G2) placed on the phalanx of the little finger, and a ground electrode placed on the back of the hand between the stimulating and recording electrodes. Supra-maximal stimulations at the wrist 8 cm away from G1 was performed to obtain the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and F wave of the ADM muscle with the cathode distal and proximal to the anode, respectively. The stimulation was given less than 1 Hz to avoid influences from the previous stimulus. The ratio of amplitude of the mean and the maximal F-wave to the CMAP (F/M ratio) were then calculated.
Measured: Performed at baseline
Post-training Change of F/M ratio of ulnar nerve
An electrophysiological examination was performed with an active recording surface electrode (G1) placed over the belly of the abductor digiti minimi of the affected side, a reference electrode (G2) placed on the phalanx of the little finger, and a ground electrode placed on the back of the hand between the stimulating and recording electrodes. Supra-maximal stimulations at the wrist 8 cm away from G1 was performed to obtain the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and F wave of the ADM muscle with the cathode distal and proximal to the anode, respectively. The stimulation was given less than 1 Hz to avoid influences from the previous stimulus. The ratio of amplitude of the mean and the maximal F-wave to the CMAP (F/M ratio) were then calculated.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 30 days
3-Month Follow-up Change of F/M ratio of ulnar nerve
An electrophysiological examination was performed with an active recording surface electrode (G1) placed over the belly of the abductor digiti minimi of the affected side, a reference electrode (G2) placed on the phalanx of the little finger, and a ground electrode placed on the back of the hand between the stimulating and recording electrodes. Supra-maximal stimulations at the wrist 8 cm away from G1 was performed to obtain the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and F wave of the ADM muscle with the cathode distal and proximal to the anode, respectively. The stimulation was given less than 1 Hz to avoid influences from the previous stimulus. The ratio of amplitude of the mean and the maximal F-wave to the CMAP (F/M ratio) were then calculated.
Measured: Change from baseline at average 90 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Jun 2020
- Study start4 Nov 2016
- Primary completion22 Mar 2019
- Study completion22 Mar 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Chang Gung Memorial 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
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 35 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Chu-Hsu Lin, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
- Investigators
- Chu-Hsu Lin, MD, Principal investigator, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04441437
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 104-9569A3
- Status last verified
- Jun 2020
- First submitted
- 16 Jun 2020
- Last updated
- 23 Jun 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 Jun 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Efficacy of Dynamic Hand Splint Treatment in Spastic Hemiparetic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04441437
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 104-9569A3
- Conditions
- Stroke, Brain Injuries
- Keywords
- spasticity, dynamic hand splint, stroke, traumatic brain injury
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 35 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Chang Gung Memorial HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 4 Nov 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 22 Mar 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 22 Mar 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Jun 2020 (actual)
- 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 randomized controlled trial was designed to study the efficacy of dynamic hand splinting on spastic hemiparetic patients due to stroke or traumatic brain injury.
Detailed description
Subjects were recruited from both inpatients and outpatients who received rehabilitation programs in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: the splint group and the control group. The subjects in the splint group received 1-hour task-oriented training with wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month plus conventional rehabilitation programs. The subjects in the control group received the same treatments but without splint used. Evaluations including Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), active range of motion (AROM), grip strength, Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Motor Activity Log 30(MAL), and F/M ratio were performed at baseline, post-training, and 2 months later after the intervention finished, and the evaluators were blinded to the grouping of the subjects.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Splint Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splint1-hour task-oriented training with wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. |
| No-Splint Group | Placebo comparator | Behavioral: Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splint1-hour task-oriented training without wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- an age of 20 to 85 years
- the duration of stroke or brain injury more than 6 months
- unilateral hemiparesis with intact sound side limbs function
- the Brunnstrom's stage of both arm and hand ≥ III
- able to follow instructions, wear a dynamic hand splint and perform therapeutic activities
Key exclusion criteria (11 listed)
- patients with apraxia
- cognitive impairment with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score < 25
- any fixed contracture of the affected wrist or fingers
- a history of peripheral nerve injury, other severe neuromuscular disease or musculoskeletal deformity change in the affected side upper extremity
- a history of alcohol or phenol injection to the affected side upper extremity
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splintIn addition to conventional rehabilitation programs (therapy-as-usual), the subject in the splint group received 1-hour task-oriented training with wearing a customized dynamic hand splint, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. The content of task-oriented training contained picking cubes from side to side with three-jaw grasp, lifting the cone to the shoulder height with the cylindrical grip and an extended elbow, picking up pegs and inserting it into the hole with palmar pinch, and grasping a soap to simulate wiping the body. Among the four tasks, two were chosen to train the subjects according to the abilities of subjects. | Behavioural | Splint Group |
| Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splintIn addition to conventional rehabilitation programs (therapy-as-usual), the subject in the no-splint group received 1-hour task-oriented training, totally 15 times in a duration of one month. The content of task-oriented training contained picking cubes from side to side with three-jaw grasp, lifting the cone to the shoulder height with the cylindrical grip and an extended elbow, picking up pegs and inserting it into the hole with palmar pinch, and grasping a soap to simulate wiping the body. Among the four tasks, two were chosen to train the subjects according to the abilities of subjects. | Behavioural | No-Splint Group |
Primary outcome
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
Time frame: Performed at baseline
A participant was made in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table. Then his or her 2nd to 5th fingers was moved by the examiner from maximum possible flexion to maximum possible extension over a duration of about one second. All of the four fingers were done at once. The participant's wrist and elbow were then also tested in the same manner. The lowest score was zero and the highest score was 415. For statistical purposes, the MAS score '1+' is considered as 2, '2' as 3, and so on until 5.
Post-training Change of Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 30 days
A participant was made in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table. Then his or her 2nd to 5th fingers was moved by the examiner from maximum possible flexion to maximum possible extension over a duration of about one second. All of the four fingers were done at once. The participant's wrist and elbow were then also tested in the same manner. The lowest score was zero and the highest score was 415. For statistical purposes, the MAS score '1+' is considered as 2, '2' as 3, and so on until 5.
3-Month Follow-up Change of Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 90 days
A participant was made in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table. Then his or her 2nd to 5th fingers was moved by the examiner from maximum possible flexion to maximum possible extension over a duration of about one second. All of the four fingers were done at once. The participant's wrist and elbow were then also tested in the same manner. The lowest score was zero and the highest score was 415. For statistical purposes, the MAS score '1+' is considered as 2, '2' as 3, and so on until 5.
Active range of motion (AROM)
Time frame: Performed at baseline
A participant in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table was instructed to actively move his or her fingers and wrists as much as possible. Then the AROM of the index finger and wrist were measured by a goniometer.
Post-training Change of Active range of motion (AROM)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 30 days
A participant in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table was instructed to actively move his or her fingers and wrists as much as possible. Then the AROM of the index finger and wrist were measured by a goniometer.
3-Month Follow-up Change of Active range of motion (AROM)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 90 days
A participant in sitting position with the palm of the affected side placed at the edge of table was instructed to actively move his or her fingers and wrists as much as possible. Then the AROM of the index finger and wrist were measured by a goniometer.
Grip strength
Time frame: Performed at baseline
For the grip strength measurement, a participant in sitting position was instructed to squeeze a dynamometer with the unaffected hand as hard as he or she can for about 3 seconds. Then the hand of affected side was tested in the same manner. Three consecutive measurements with a 3-minute interval were performed for each hand and the arithmetic mean value of the 3 trials was used for statistical analysis.
Post-training Change of Grip strength
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 30 days
For the grip strength measurement, a participant in sitting position was instructed to squeeze a dynamometer with the unaffected hand as hard as he or she can for about 3 seconds. Then the hand of affected side was tested in the same manner. Three consecutive measurements with a 3-minute interval were performed for each hand and the arithmetic mean value of the 3 trials was used for statistical analysis.
3-Month Follow-up Change of Grip strength
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 90 days
For the grip strength measurement, a participant in sitting position was instructed to squeeze a dynamometer with the unaffected hand as hard as he or she can for about 3 seconds. Then the hand of affected side was tested in the same manner. Three consecutive measurements with a 3-minute interval were performed for each hand and the arithmetic mean value of the 3 trials was used for statistical analysis.
Motor Activity Log 30(MAL)
Time frame: Performed at baseline
Using the standardized questions from the upper-extremity MAL, a participant was rated how much (Amount of Use scale, MAL-AOU) and how well (Quality of Movement scale, MAL-QOM) he or she used the upper limb of affected side to accomplish each functional activity during the past week. Both scales were anchored at 6 points (AOU scale: 0 = not used, 5 = the same as before stroke or brain injury; QOM scale: 0 = not used, 5 = normal).17, 18 A mean MAL score is the mean of all item scores.
Post-training Change of Motor Activity Log 30(MAL)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 30 days
Using the standardized questions from the upper-extremity MAL, a participant was rated how much (Amount of Use scale, MAL-AOU) and how well (Quality of Movement scale, MAL-QOM) he or she used the upper limb of affected side to accomplish each functional activity during the past week. Both scales were anchored at 6 points (AOU scale: 0 = not used, 5 = the same as before stroke or brain injury; QOM scale: 0 = not used, 5 = normal).17, 18 A mean MAL score is the mean of all item scores.
3-Month Follow-up Change of Motor Activity Log 30(MAL)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 90 days
Using the standardized questions from the upper-extremity MAL, a participant was rated how much (Amount of Use scale, MAL-AOU) and how well (Quality of Movement scale, MAL-QOM) he or she used the upper limb of affected side to accomplish each functional activity during the past week. Both scales were anchored at 6 points (AOU scale: 0 = not used, 5 = the same as before stroke or brain injury; QOM scale: 0 = not used, 5 = normal).17, 18 A mean MAL score is the mean of all item scores.
Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
Time frame: Performed at baseline
For the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA), a 3-graded scale with 0 as minimum and 2 as maximum was applied for grading of sensorimotor function.19 The testing procedure was conducted in a standardized manner according to the written instructions originally published and some additional general guidelines.20, 21 For motor function assessment, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE) was used. Clear and precise instructions were given to a seated participant for each movement. The unaffected side simulated first and then the affected side was evaluated. Each activity was repeated 3 times and the highest score was recorded. The maximum total score was 66. For sensory function assessment, the Modified Fugl-Meyer sensory assessment (FMA-sensory) was used. This included tests of the light touch, temperature, tactile localization and position sensation of the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, calf and foot of the affected side. The maximum total score was 44.
Post-training Change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 30 days
For the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA), a 3-graded scale with 0 as minimum and 2 as maximum was applied for grading of sensorimotor function.19 The testing procedure was conducted in a standardized manner according to the written instructions originally published and some additional general guidelines.20, 21 For motor function assessment, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE) was used. Clear and precise instructions were given to a seated participant for each movement. The unaffected side simulated first and then the affected side was evaluated. Each activity was repeated 3 times and the highest score was recorded. The maximum total score was 66. For sensory function assessment, the Modified Fugl-Meyer sensory assessment (FMA-sensory) was used. This included tests of the light touch, temperature, tactile localization and position sensation of the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, calf and foot of the affected side. The maximum total score was 44.
3-Month Follow-up Change of Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA)
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 90 days
For the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMA), a 3-graded scale with 0 as minimum and 2 as maximum was applied for grading of sensorimotor function.19 The testing procedure was conducted in a standardized manner according to the written instructions originally published and some additional general guidelines.20, 21 For motor function assessment, the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity (FMA-UE) was used. Clear and precise instructions were given to a seated participant for each movement. The unaffected side simulated first and then the affected side was evaluated. Each activity was repeated 3 times and the highest score was recorded. The maximum total score was 66. For sensory function assessment, the Modified Fugl-Meyer sensory assessment (FMA-sensory) was used. This included tests of the light touch, temperature, tactile localization and position sensation of the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, calf and foot of the affected side. The maximum total score was 44.
F/M ratio of ulnar nerve
Time frame: Performed at baseline
An electrophysiological examination was performed with an active recording surface electrode (G1) placed over the belly of the abductor digiti minimi of the affected side, a reference electrode (G2) placed on the phalanx of the little finger, and a ground electrode placed on the back of the hand between the stimulating and recording electrodes. Supra-maximal stimulations at the wrist 8 cm away from G1 was performed to obtain the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and F wave of the ADM muscle with the cathode distal and proximal to the anode, respectively. The stimulation was given less than 1 Hz to avoid influences from the previous stimulus. The ratio of amplitude of the mean and the maximal F-wave to the CMAP (F/M ratio) were then calculated.
Post-training Change of F/M ratio of ulnar nerve
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 30 days
An electrophysiological examination was performed with an active recording surface electrode (G1) placed over the belly of the abductor digiti minimi of the affected side, a reference electrode (G2) placed on the phalanx of the little finger, and a ground electrode placed on the back of the hand between the stimulating and recording electrodes. Supra-maximal stimulations at the wrist 8 cm away from G1 was performed to obtain the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and F wave of the ADM muscle with the cathode distal and proximal to the anode, respectively. The stimulation was given less than 1 Hz to avoid influences from the previous stimulus. The ratio of amplitude of the mean and the maximal F-wave to the CMAP (F/M ratio) were then calculated.
3-Month Follow-up Change of F/M ratio of ulnar nerve
Time frame: Change from baseline at average 90 days
An electrophysiological examination was performed with an active recording surface electrode (G1) placed over the belly of the abductor digiti minimi of the affected side, a reference electrode (G2) placed on the phalanx of the little finger, and a ground electrode placed on the back of the hand between the stimulating and recording electrodes. Supra-maximal stimulations at the wrist 8 cm away from G1 was performed to obtain the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and F wave of the ADM muscle with the cathode distal and proximal to the anode, respectively. The stimulation was given less than 1 Hz to avoid influences from the previous stimulus. The ratio of amplitude of the mean and the maximal F-wave to the CMAP (F/M ratio) were then calculated.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 Jun 2020.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stroke
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.
Chu-Hsu Lin, MD principal investigator
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Task-oriented training with a dynamic hand splint and Task-oriented training without a dynamic hand splint in people with Stroke and Brain Injuries, run by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital.
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 7 inclusion and 11 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Jun 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) (time frame: Performed at baseline). The study lists 18 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 23 Jun 2020.