Systematic review of mirror therapy compared with conventional rehabilitation in upper extremity function in stroke survivors

Why the fuck is a review needed? You don't keep up with research in your field? No publicly available database of research and protocols? Laziness? Stupidity? Waiting for SOMEONE ELSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM? I have 37 posts on mirror therapy going back to 2012. Proof we have NO strategy and NO leadership. Wasting money and time again.

Systematic review of mirror therapy compared with conventional rehabilitation in upper extremity function in stroke survivors

• First published: 29 December 2016Full publication history
• DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.12342View/save citation
• Cited by: 0 articles

• 

• Declaration of conflicting interest
  The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
  

Abstract

Background/aim

Stroke is a leading cause of disability in developed countries. One of the most widespread techniques in clinical practice is mirror therapy (MT). To determine the effectiveness of MT over other methods of intervention in the recovery of upper limb function in people who have had a stroke.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted. The search string was established based on the last systematic review about MT that dated from 2009: “upper extremity” OR “upper limb “AND “mirror therapy” AND stroke. For this search Pubmed, Scopus and SciELO databases were used.

Results

Fifteen studies were included in the systematic review. Recovery of the upper limb, upper limb function and gross manual dexterity were frequently measured in these studies.

Conclusions

In the primary variables in promoting recovery, MT alone showed better results in acute and chronic stroke patients in upper limb functioning than either conventional rehabilitation (CR) or CR plus MT.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015026869

• Get access to the full text of this article