21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Motor training programs of arm and hand in patients with MS according to different levels of the ICF: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The upper extremity plays an important role in daily functioning of patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and strongly influences their quality of life. However, an explicit overview of arm-hand training programs is lacking. The present review aims to investigate the training components and the outcome of motor training programs for arm and hand in MS.

          Methods

          A computerized systematic literature search in 5 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and Cochrane) was performed using the following Mesh terms: Multiple Sclerosis, Rehabilitation, Physical Education and Training, Exercise, Patient-Centered Care, Upper Extremity, Activities of Daily Living, Motor Skills, Motor Activity, Intervention Studies and Clinical Trial. The methodological quality of the selected articles was scored with the Van Tulder Checklist. A descriptive analyses was performed using the PICO principle, including scoring of training components with the calculation of Hedges’g effect sizes.

          Results

          Eleven studies were eligible (mean Van Tulder-score = 10.82(SD2.96)). Most studies reported a specific improvement in arm hand performance at the ICF level that was trained at. The mean number of training components was 5.5(SD2.8) and a significant correlation (r = 0.67; p < 0.05) between the number of training components and effect sizes was found. The components ‘client-centered’ and ‘functional movement’ were most frequently used, whereas ‘distribution based practice’, ‘feedback’ and ‘random practice’ were never used. The component ‘exercise progression’ was only used in studies with single ICF body function training, with the exception of 1 study with activity level training. Studies including the component ‘client-centred’ demonstrated moderate to high effect sizes.

          Conclusion

          Motor training programs (both at the ICF body function and activity level) have shown to improve arm and hand performance in MS in which the value of the training specificity was emphasized. To optimize upper extremity training in MS the component ‘client-centred’ and ‘exercise progression’ may be important. Furthermore, given the importance attributed to the components ‘distribution based practice’, ‘feedback’ and ‘random practice’ in previous research in stroke patients, the use of these components in arm hand training should be explored in future research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review.

          The aim of the study was to present a systematic review of studies that investigate the effects of robot-assisted therapy on motor and functional recovery in patients with stroke. A database of articles published up to October 2006 was compiled using the following Medline key words: cerebral vascular accident, cerebral vascular disorders, stroke, paresis, hemiplegia, upper extremity, arm, and robot. References listed in relevant publications were also screened. Studies that satisfied the following selection criteria were included: (1) patients were diagnosed with cerebral vascular accident; (2) effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb were investigated; (3) the outcome was measured in terms of motor and/or functional recovery of the upper paretic limb; and (4) the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). For each outcome measure, the estimated effect size (ES) and the summary effect size (SES) expressed in standard deviation units (SDU) were calculated for motor recovery and functional ability (activities of daily living [ADLs]) using fixed and random effect models. Ten studies, involving 218 patients, were included in the synthesis. Their methodological quality ranged from 4 to 8 on a (maximum) 10-point scale. Meta-analysis showed a nonsignificant heterogeneous SES in terms of upper limb motor recovery. Sensitivity analysis of studies involving only shoulder-elbow robotics subsequently demonstrated a significant homogeneous SES for motor recovery of the upper paretic limb. No significant SES was observed for functional ability (ADL). As a result of marked heterogeneity in studies between distal and proximal arm robotics, no overall significant effect in favor of robot-assisted therapy was found in the present meta-analysis. However, subsequent sensitivity analysis showed a significant improvement in upper limb motor function after stroke for upper arm robotics. No significant improvement was found in ADL function. However, the administered ADL scales in the reviewed studies fail to adequately reflect recovery of the paretic upper limb, whereas valid instruments that measure outcome of dexterity of the paretic arm and hand are mostly absent in selected studies. Future research into the effects of robot-assisted therapy should therefore distinguish between upper and lower robotics arm training and concentrate on kinematical analysis to differentiate between genuine upper limb motor recovery and functional recovery due to compensation strategies by proximal control of the trunk and upper limb.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multiple sclerosis and physical exercise: recommendations for the application of resistance-, endurance- and combined training.

              This review summarizes the existing knowledge regarding the effects of physical exercise in patients suffering from multiple sclerosis (MS). Furthermore, recommendations are given regarding exercise prescription for MS patients and for future study directions. Previously, MS patients were advised not to participate in physical exercise. During recent years, it has been increasingly acknowledged that exercise benefits MS patients. The requirement for exercise in MS patients is emphasized by their physiological profile, which probably reflects both the effects of the disease per se and the reversible effects of an inactive lifestyle. To date the effects of exercise have only been studied in moderately impaired MS patients with an EDSS score of less than 7. Evidence exists for recommending participation in endurance training at low to moderate intensity, as the existing literature demonstrates that MS patients can both tolerate and benefit from this training modality. Also, resistance training of moderate intensity seems to be well tolerated and to have beneficial effects on MS patients, but the methodological quality of the existing evidence is in general low and the number of studies is limited. Only two studies have evaluated the effects of combined resistance- and endurance training, making solid conclusions regarding this training modality impossible.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Neurol
                BMC Neurol
                BMC Neurology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2377
                2012
                2 July 2012
                : 12
                : 49
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Healthcare, PHL University College Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium
                [2 ]Adelante Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Maastricht University, Research School CAPHRi, Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Guffenslaan 39, 3500, Hasselt, Belgium
                Article
                1471-2377-12-49
                10.1186/1471-2377-12-49
                3527200
                22747894
                254b6b1f-77ae-4308-8a21-a50b590ad0aa
                Copyright ©2012 Spooren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 December 2011
                : 6 June 2012
                Categories
                Research Article

                Neurology
                training,rehabilitation,multiple sclerosis,upper extremity,icf
                Neurology
                training, rehabilitation, multiple sclerosis, upper extremity, icf

                Comments

                Comment on this article