Effectiveness of the Bobath concept in the treatment of stroke:A systematic review
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Bobath concept in sensorimotor rehabilitation after stroke.Materials and methods: A systematic literature review was conducted on the Bobath concept from the first publication available to January 2018, consulting PUBMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PEDro databases. Fifteen clinical trials were selected in two consecutive screenings. Two independent researchers rated the studies according to the PEDro scale from which a best evidence synthesis was derived to determine the strength of the evidence.Results: The Bobath concept is not more effective than other approaches used in post-stroke rehabilitation. There is moderate evidence for the superiority of other therapeutic approaches such as forced use of the affected upper limb and constraint-induced movement therapy for motor control of the upper limb.Conclusions: The Bobath concept is not superior to other approaches for regaining mobility, motor control of the lower limb and gait, balance and activities of daily living of patients after stroke. There is moderate evidence regarding the superior results of other approaches in terms of the motor control and dexterity of the upper limb. Due to the limitations concerning the methodological quality of the studies, further well-designed studies are needed.Implications for rehabilitationThe Bobath concept is not superior to other approaches for patients after stroke.The treatments that incorporate overuse of the affected upper limb via intensive treatments with high-repetitions with or without robotic aids present greater effectiveness in the motor control of the upper limb and dexterity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One systematic review published in 2019 confirmed that overall the Bobath concept is not as beneficial as other therapies.
“One systematic review was published in 2019,[35] and they confirmed that overall the Bobath concept is not as beneficial as other therapies.”
From The Bobath Concept (NDT) as rehabilitation in stroke patients: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [35]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 91 · Cited by 76
- Authors
- Díaz-Arribas, M. J., Martín-Casas, P., Cano-de-la-Cuerda, R., & Plaza-Manzano, G.
- Affiliations
- Department of Radiology, Rehabilitation and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain;
- Departament of Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Spain
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-04-24
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1636-1649
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2940997317
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Universidad Complutense de Madrid
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- Bobath concept, stroke rehabilitation, sensorimotor rehabilitation, constraint-induced movement therapy, upper limb motor control, upper limb dexterity, gait, balance, activities of daily living, robot-assisted therapy, motor recovery
- MeSH terms
- Neurological Rehabilitation, Stroke Rehabilitation, Humans, Gait Disorders, Neurologic, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review