This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rijntjes, M. Articles by Weiller, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rijntjes, M. Articles by Weiller, C. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Individual Factors in Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy after Stroke

Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, Department of Neurology, University Clinic Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, rijntjes{at}uke.uni-hamburg.de

Verena Hobbeling

Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Farsin Hamzei

Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Stefanie Dohse

Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Gesche Ketels

Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Joachim Liepert

Department of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Cornelius Weiller

Department of Neurology, University Clinic Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Objectives. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) has been shown to be effective in chronic stroke patients. It is worthwhile to investigate the influence of individual factors for two reasons: to find out whether they influence outcome and to see whether they support the theory underlying CIMT. Methods. Agroupof26 patients were treated with CIMT and followed over 6 months. In total, 14 individual factors were identified. Patients were assessed with 6 tests, including 2 commonly used after stroke (Frenchay Arm Test, 9 Hole Peg Test). Results. There were individual differences, but as a group, patients improved after therapy. There were no individual factors that influenced improvement in more than one test. Conclusions. CIMT is an effective therapy in patients with moderate impairment after stroke, also in tests commonly used in stroke rehabilitation. Factors that could have expected to make a difference on the basis of the theory behind CIMT (e.g., time since stroke, previous therapy, sensory deficit) did not influence results. Patients with hemorrhagic lesions and those with a high level of performance (Motor Activity Log > 2.5) profit as well. Pairwise therapy is as effective as individual therapy.

Key Words: Stroke • Rehabilitation • CIMT

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 19, No. 3, 238-249 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1545968305279205


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K.-c. Lin, Y.-h. Huang, Y.-w. Hsieh, and C.-y. Wu Potential Predictors of Motor and Functional Outcomes After Distributed Constraint-Induced Therapy for Patients With Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2009; 23(4): 336 - 342. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Rijntjes, K. Haevernick, A. Barzel, H. van den Bussche, G. Ketels, and C. Weiller Repeat Therapy for Chronic Motor Stroke: A Pilot Study for Feasibility and Efficacy Neurorehabil Neural Repair, March 1, 2009; 23(3): 275 - 280. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S.-W. Park, S. L. Wolf, S. Blanton, C. Winstein, and D. S. Nichols-Larsen The EXCITE Trial: Predicting a Clinically Meaningful Motor Activity Log Outcome Neurorehabil Neural Repair, September 1, 2008; 22(5): 486 - 493. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. L. Wolf, C. J. Winstein, J. P. Miller, S. Blanton, P. C. Clark, and D. Nichols-Larsen Looking in the Rear View Mirror When Conversing With Back Seat Drivers: The EXCITE Trial Revisited Neurorehabil Neural Repair, October 1, 2007; 21(5): 379 - 387. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. L Wolf Revisiting Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy: Are We Too Smitten With the Mitten? Is All Nonuse "Learned"? and Other Quandaries Physical Therapy, September 1, 2007; 87(9): 1212 - 1223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. H. Dobkin Interpreting the Randomized Clinical Trial of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Arch Neurol, March 1, 2007; 64(3): 336 - 338. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. H. Dobkin Confounders in Rehabilitation Trials of Task-Oriented Training: Lessons From the Designs of the EXCITE and SCILT Multicenter Trials Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2007; 21(1): 3 - 13. [Abstract] [PDF]