StrokeNCT07340034
Effects of Focal Muscle Vibration Versus Whole Upper Limb Vibration in Post-Stroke Patients
A study testing Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation and Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation in people with Stroke and Post Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity, run by Lahore University of Biological and Applied Sciences at 1 site in Pakistan.
Trial summary
This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on rehabilitation strategies for post-stroke patients, specifically focusing on the efficacy of vibration therapy modalities. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 45 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke, Post Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity
- What is being tested?
- Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation and Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 54 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePakistan
- Study dates
- 21 Apr 2026to 9 Jul 2026
- 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 45 to 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Clinical diagnosis of first-ever ischemic stroke
- Age from 45 to 60 years
- Both male and female participants
- Onset of stroke 3 month to 6 months previously
- Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score for the upper limb muscles on the hemiparetic side between 1+ and 3
- Able to follow verbal commands and sign informed consent forms EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Show all 13Show fewer
- Cardiovascular disease or uncontrolled diabetes
- Upper limb muscle contracture on the affected side
- Peripheral neuropathy
- Uncontrolled hypertension
- Malignant tumors
- Uncontrolled seizures
- Dementia
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Pakistan1 site
Shadman Medical Center, Stroke Rehabilitation Center
Lahore, Punjab Province, 54000
About this study
Official title: Effects of Focal Muscle Vibration Versus Whole Upper Limb Vibration on Spasticity and Upper Motor Control Functions in Post-Stroke Patients
This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on rehabilitation strategies for post-stroke patients, specifically focusing on the efficacy of vibration therapy modalities. By comparing focal muscle vibration therapy and whole upper limb vibration therapy, the research aims to provide empirical evidence that can inform clinical practices and enhance rehabilitation outcomes. The findings are expected to clarify which modality is more effective in reducing spasticity and improving motor control, thereby guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate interventions tailored to individual patient needs, increasing chances of benefits, time management and useful for academic purpose. Furthermore, the study addresses a critical gap in the literature, facilitating further research and discussion on the mechanisms underlying vibration therapy's effects.
Ultimately, this research aims to reduce spasticity and improve community outcomes by enhancing the quality of life for stroke survivors, enabling them to regain independence and participate more fully in daily activities by regaining the motor control functions. By contributing to both theoretical and practical frameworks, the study seeks to advance the field of neurorehabilitation and support informed decision-making among healthcare professionals.
Read the detailed description
Motor impairment post-stroke, which usually affects the movement of the face, arm, and leg on one side of the body, impacts approximately 80% of individuals who have experienced a stroke. Upper limb motor impairments (involving the arm, hand, and/or fingers) are often long-lasting and debilitating; only about half of stroke survivors with an initially paralyzed upper limb recover some useful function within six months.
Recently, mechanical vibrations have been utilized as a form of somatosensory stimulation to enhance motor function and to address muscle spasticity in the upper limbs following a stroke. When applying vibration stimuli during exercise or physical rehabilitation, these can be broadly classified into two categories: (a) vibrations that are directly applied to a specific muscle or tendon, and (b) indirect vibrations that are not limited to a specific muscle, delivered either through the feet while standing on a platform or through the hands using a handheld device. The direct application of vibrations to a muscle or tendon is often referred to as focal muscle vibration (FMV) or segmental vibration (SV), and it may also be called repetitive muscle vibration (rMV). In contrast, indirect vibrations delivered through the hands are typically known as upper limb vibration (ULV), while those aimed at the lower limbs are referred to as whole-body vibration (WBV).
Vibration therapy (VT) is a form of physical therapy that employs mechanical vibration waves to stimulate the human neuromuscular system for therapeutic benefits. It demonstrates promising potential for use in the rehabilitation of dysfunctions part of bosy resulting from a stroke.
Focal muscle vibration (FMV) OR segmental muscle vibration is a relatively new approach used to enhance motor function and reduce spasticity in the hemiplegic upper limb of stroke patients. In FMV, a vibratory stimulus is delivered to a specific muscle tendon via a mechanical device, which activates the muscle spindle primary endings and generates Ia inputs. Vibration applied to a muscle can elevate the motor-evoked potential recorded from that muscle at rest, indicating an increase in corticospinal excitability during the vibration. Additionally, studies have shown that the duration of the cortical silent period in a forearm flexor muscle can increase when the antagonist forearm extensors are vibrated, providing strong evidence that pure sensory stimulation can influence motor cortical excitability.
- Conditions
- Stroke, Post Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity
- Being tested
- Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation, Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation
- Keywords
- Whole upper limb vibration, Focal muscle vibration, Upper limb spasticity, Upper Motor Control Functions
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitationOther
Group A will receive the 30 minutes treatment protocol. Warm-up exercises for first 15 minutes with ROM and stretching exercises of upper extremity 15 minutes application of FMV All participants were instructed to sit back in a high, fixed chair without armrests, keeping their feet flat on the floor. The dominant shoulder was positioned slightly away from the trunk i.e. in slight abduction and the elbow was held at a 90° angle as part of the designated vibration position. After setting up, the researcher guided the participants to remain seated in the same position as it might affect the results and treatment. The participants then received the vibration in frequency of 30 Hz in both vertical and horizontal directions.
Based on our review of prior clinical studies aimed at improving muscle spasticity we implemented vibration protocols with exposure times ranging from 30 to 60 seconds and rest intervals between 15 and 60 seconds. The analysis focused on seven muscle groups
Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitationOther
Group B will receive the 30 minutes treatment protocol. Warm-up exercises for first 15 minutes with ROM and stretching exercises of upper extremity.
Patients in the treatment group received upper limb vibration using the Power Plate vibration platform (Performance Health Systems, Power Plate Pro5, North America 2009). The patient was seated on a stool placed next to the whole-body vibration device; the elbow was positioned at 70-80 degrees flexion and wrist was positioned at dorsiflexion and upper limb vibration was applied through Whole body vibrator to the affected limb for two minutes. The WBV consisted of two sessions of 60 seconds of stimulation interrupted by a one-minute break between each session to prevent muscle fatigue. The amplitude of the vibration was 2 mm, and the frequency was 35-40 Hz. An experienced physical therapist supervised the WBV administration. The upper limb vibration treatment was performed 5 times a week for 8 weeks.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation | Experimental | Group A will receive the Focal muscle vibration in the major group of muscle such as Elbow flexors and wrist flexors along with the conventional neurorehabilitation. Receives: Other: Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation |
| Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation | Active comparator | Group B will receive the upper limb vibration which will include all muscles of effected limb along with the conventional neurorehabilitation. Receives: Other: Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Fugl-Meyer assessment of upper limb (FMA-UE)
The Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) is a commonly utilized tool for measuring motor impairment in stroke rehabilitation. The FMA-UE has demonstrated excellent test-retest and inter- and intra-rater reliability, and evidence for its content validity in acute and subacute populations have been widely reported. The UE section of the FMA consists of 33 items and is scored on a 3-point ordinal scale with 0 meaning cannot perform, 1 meaning can partially perform, and 2 meaning can perform fully. Scores are summed with a maximum potential score of 66 points.
Measured: baseline, after 2 weeks and 4 weeks
Modified Ashworth scale (MAS)
The Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) is the most widely used clinical tool for measuring increased muscle tone or spasticity The MAS has demonstrated excellent test-retest and inter- and intra-rater reliability, The inter-rater reliability of the scale has been reported to vary significantly depending on the muscle group being assessed, the examiner's experience, and methodological inconsistencies in applying the scale.
The scale is as follows:
0: No increase in muscle tone
- Slight increase in muscle tone, with a catch and release or minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion when an affected part(s) is moved in flexion or extension 1+: Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested as a catch, followed by minimal resistance through the remainder (less than half) of the range of motion
- A marked increase in muscle tone throughout most of the range of motion
- Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult
- Affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension
Measured: baseline, after 4 weeks and 8 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Jan 2026
- Study start21 Apr 2026
- Primary completion9 Jul 2026
- Study completion9 Jul 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Lahore University of Biological and Applied SciencesThe 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
- Model description
- This study will use a parallel-group design, with participants randomly allocated into two intervention groups. Group A (Focused Muscle Vibration - FMV) 30-minute session: 15 min upper-extremity ROM/stretching + 15 min FMV. FMV delivered at 30 Hz while seated (shoulder slightly abducted, elbow at 90°). Vibration applied in 60-s bouts with 60-s rest. Target muscles: biceps, triceps, anterior deltoid, FDS, FCR, ECR, ECU. Frequency: 5 days/week for 8 weeks. Group B (Upper Limb Vibration ULV) 30-minute session: 15 min ROM/stretching + ULV using Power Plate Pro5. Seated position with elbow 70-80° flexion and wrist dorsiflexed. ULV applied in 2 × 60-s bouts, 1-min rest, amplitude 2 mm, frequency 35-40 Hz. Frequency: 5 days/week for 8 weeks. Participants will be randomly allocated into two parallel groups to ensure an unbiased comparison, with each group receiving its specific intervention protocol throughout the study period without crossover to the other groups intervention.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07340034
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UBAS/ERB/FoRS/25/036
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 5 Jan 2026
- Last updated
- 24 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Lu YH, Chen HJ, Liao CD, Chen PJ, Wang XM, Yu CH, Chen PY, Lin CH. Upper extremity function and disability recovery with vibration therapy after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024 Dec 21;21(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01515-6.
PubMed 39707380Karnath HO. Pusher syndrome--a frequent but little-known disturbance of body orientation perception. J Neurol. 2007 Apr;254(4):415-24. doi: 10.1007/s00415-006-0341-6. Epub 2007 Mar 25.
PubMed 17385082
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Focal Muscle Vibration Versus Whole Upper Limb Vibration on Spasticity and Upper Motor Control Functions in Post-Stroke Patients
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07340034
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UBAS/ERB/FoRS/25/036
- Conditions
- Stroke, Post Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity
- Keywords
- Whole upper limb vibration, Focal muscle vibration, Upper limb spasticity, Upper Motor Control Functions
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Lahore University of Biological and Applied SciencesUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 21 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 9 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 9 Jul 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Jan 2026 (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.
This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on rehabilitation strategies for post-stroke patients, specifically focusing on the efficacy of vibration therapy modalities. By comparing focal muscle vibration therapy and whole upper limb vibration therapy, the research aims to provide empirical evidence that can inform clinical practices and enhance rehabilitation outcomes. The findings are expected to clarify which modality is more effective in reducing spasticity and improving motor control, thereby guiding clinicians in selecting appropriate interventions tailored to individual patient needs, increasing chances of benefits, time management and useful for academic purpose. Furthermore, the study addresses a critical gap in the literature, facilitating further research and discussion on the mechanisms underlying vibration therapy's effects.
Ultimately, this research aims to reduce spasticity and improve community outcomes by enhancing the quality of life for stroke survivors, enabling them to regain independence and participate more fully in daily activities by regaining the motor control functions. By contributing to both theoretical and practical frameworks, the study seeks to advance the field of neurorehabilitation and support informed decision-making among healthcare professionals.
Detailed description
Motor impairment post-stroke, which usually affects the movement of the face, arm, and leg on one side of the body, impacts approximately 80% of individuals who have experienced a stroke. Upper limb motor impairments (involving the arm, hand, and/or fingers) are often long-lasting and debilitating; only about half of stroke survivors with an initially paralyzed upper limb recover some useful function within six months.
Recently, mechanical vibrations have been utilized as a form of somatosensory stimulation to enhance motor function and to address muscle spasticity in the upper limbs following a stroke. When applying vibration stimuli during exercise or physical rehabilitation, these can be broadly classified into two categories: (a) vibrations that are directly applied to a specific muscle or tendon, and (b) indirect vibrations that are not limited to a specific muscle, delivered either through the feet while standing on a platform or through the hands using a handheld device. The direct application of vibrations to a muscle or tendon is often referred to as focal muscle vibration (FMV) or segmental vibration (SV), and it may also be called repetitive muscle vibration (rMV). In contrast, indirect vibrations delivered through the hands are typically known as upper limb vibration (ULV), while those aimed at the lower limbs are referred to as whole-body vibration (WBV).
Vibration therapy (VT) is a form of physical therapy that employs mechanical vibration waves to stimulate the human neuromuscular system for therapeutic benefits. It demonstrates promising potential for use in the rehabilitation of dysfunctions part of bosy resulting from a stroke.
Focal muscle vibration (FMV) OR segmental muscle vibration is a relatively new approach used to enhance motor function and reduce spasticity in the hemiplegic upper limb of stroke patients. In FMV, a vibratory stimulus is delivered to a specific muscle tendon via a mechanical device, which activates the muscle spindle primary endings and generates Ia inputs. Vibration applied to a muscle can elevate the motor-evoked potential recorded from that muscle at rest, indicating an increase in corticospinal excitability during the vibration. Additionally, studies have shown that the duration of the cortical silent period in a forearm flexor muscle can increase when the antagonist forearm extensors are vibrated, providing strong evidence that pure sensory stimulation can influence motor cortical excitability.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This study will use a parallel-group design, with participants randomly allocated into two intervention groups. Group A (Focused Muscle Vibration - FMV) 30-minute session: 15 min upper-extremity ROM/stretching + 15 min FMV. FMV delivered at 30 Hz while seated (shoulder slightly abducted, elbow at 90°). Vibration applied in 60-s bouts with 60-s rest. Target muscles: biceps, triceps, anterior deltoid, FDS, FCR, ECR, ECU. Frequency: 5 days/week for 8 weeks. Group B (Upper Limb Vibration ULV) 30-minute session: 15 min ROM/stretching + ULV using Power Plate Pro5. Seated position with elbow 70-80° flexion and wrist dorsiflexed. ULV applied in 2 × 60-s bouts, 1-min rest, amplitude 2 mm, frequency 35-40 Hz. Frequency: 5 days/week for 8 weeks. Participants will be randomly allocated into two parallel groups to ensure an unbiased comparison, with each group receiving its specific intervention protocol throughout the study period without crossover to the other groups intervention.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation | Experimental | Other: Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitationGroup A will receive the Focal muscle vibration in the major group of muscle such as Elbow flexors and wrist flexors along with the conventional neurorehabilitation. |
| Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation | Active comparator | Other: Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitationGroup B will receive the upper limb vibration which will include all muscles of effected limb along with the conventional neurorehabilitation. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 45 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (13 listed)
- Clinical diagnosis of first-ever ischemic stroke
- Age from 45 to 60 years
- Both male and female participants
- Onset of stroke 3 month to 6 months previously
- Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) score for the upper limb muscles on the hemiparetic side between 1+ and 3
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitationGroup A will receive the 30 minutes treatment protocol. Warm-up exercises for first 15 minutes with ROM and stretching exercises of upper extremity 15 minutes application of FMV All participants were instructed to sit back in a high, fixed chair without armrests, keeping their feet flat on the floor. The dominant shoulder was positioned slightly away from the trunk i.e. in slight abduction and the elbow was held at a 90° angle as part of the designated vibration position. After setting up, the researcher guided the participants to remain seated in the same position as it might affect the results and treatment. The participants then received the vibration in frequency of 30 Hz in both vertical and horizontal directions. Based on our review of prior clinical studies aimed at improving muscle spasticity we implemented vibration protocols with exposure times ranging from 30 to 60 seconds and rest intervals between 15 and 60 seconds. The analysis focused on seven muscle groups | Other | Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation |
| Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitationGroup B will receive the 30 minutes treatment protocol. Warm-up exercises for first 15 minutes with ROM and stretching exercises of upper extremity. Patients in the treatment group received upper limb vibration using the Power Plate vibration platform (Performance Health Systems, Power Plate Pro5, North America 2009). The patient was seated on a stool placed next to the whole-body vibration device; the elbow was positioned at 70-80 degrees flexion and wrist was positioned at dorsiflexion and upper limb vibration was applied through Whole body vibrator to the affected limb for two minutes. The WBV consisted of two sessions of 60 seconds of stimulation interrupted by a one-minute break between each session to prevent muscle fatigue. The amplitude of the vibration was 2 mm, and the frequency was 35-40 Hz. An experienced physical therapist supervised the WBV administration. The upper limb vibration treatment was performed 5 times a week for 8 weeks. | Other | Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation |
Primary outcome
Fugl-Meyer assessment of upper limb (FMA-UE)
Time frame: baseline, after 2 weeks and 4 weeks
The Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) is a commonly utilized tool for measuring motor impairment in stroke rehabilitation. The FMA-UE has demonstrated excellent test-retest and inter- and intra-rater reliability, and evidence for its content validity in acute and subacute populations have been widely reported. The UE section of the FMA consists of 33 items and is scored on a 3-point ordinal scale with 0 meaning cannot perform, 1 meaning can partially perform, and 2 meaning can perform fully. Scores are summed with a maximum potential score of 66 points.
Modified Ashworth scale (MAS)
Time frame: baseline, after 4 weeks and 8 weeks
The Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) is the most widely used clinical tool for measuring increased muscle tone or spasticity The MAS has demonstrated excellent test-retest and inter- and intra-rater reliability, The inter-rater reliability of the scale has been reported to vary significantly depending on the muscle group being assessed, the examiner's experience, and methodological inconsistencies in applying the scale. The scale is as follows: 0: No increase in muscle tone 1. Slight increase in muscle tone, with a catch and release or minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion when an affected part(s) is moved in flexion or extension 1+: Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested as a catch, followed by minimal resistance through the remainder (less than half) of the range of motion 2. A marked increase in muscle tone throughout most of the range of motion 3. Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult 4. Affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension
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 24 Jul 2026.
- Background: PubMed 39707380Lu YH, Chen HJ, Liao CD, Chen PJ, Wang XM, Yu CH, Chen PY, Lin CH. Upper extremity function and disability recovery with vibration therapy after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024 Dec 21;21(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01515-6.
- Background: PubMed 17385082Karnath HO. Pusher syndrome--a frequent but little-known disturbance of body orientation perception. J Neurol. 2007 Apr;254(4):415-24. doi: 10.1007/s00415-006-0341-6. Epub 2007 Mar 25.
- 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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Focal muscle vibration through focal muscle vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation and Upper limb vibration through whole body vibrator along with conventional neurorehabilitation in people with Stroke and Post Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity, run by Lahore University of Biological and Applied Sciences at 1 site in Pakistan.
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 13 inclusion and 0 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 24 Jul 2026. 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 Pakistan. 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. 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?
Fugl-Meyer assessment of upper limb (FMA-UE) (time frame: baseline, after 2 weeks and 4 weeks). The study lists 2 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 NCT07340034, which also lists 2 linked publications.
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 24 Jul 2026.