Cited by 745Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction

Forced Use of the Upper Extremity in Chronic Stroke Patients: Results From a Single-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

van der Lee, Johanna H., Wagenaar, Robert C., Lankhorst, Gustaaf J., Vogelaar, Tanneke W., Devillé, Walter L., Bouter, Lex M.·1999·Stroke

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Of all stroke survivors, 30% to 66% are unable to use their affected arm in performing activities of daily living. Although forced use therapy appears to improve arm function in chronic stroke patients, there is no conclusive evidence. This study evaluates the effectiveness of forced use therapy. METHODS: In an observer-blinded randomized clinical trial, 66 chronic stroke patients were allocated to either forced use therapy (immobilization of the unaffected arm combined with intensive training) or a reference therapy of equally intensive bimanual training, based on Neuro-Developmental Treatment, for a period of 2 weeks. Outcomes were evaluated on the basis of the Rehabilitation Activities Profile (activities), the Action Research Arm (ARA) test (dexterity), the upper extremity section of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale, the Motor Activity Log (MAL), and a Problem Score. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was determined at the onset of the study. RESULTS: One week after the last treatment session, a significant difference in effectiveness in favor of the forced use group compared with the bimanual group (corrected for baseline differences) was found for the ARA score (3.0 points; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.8; MCID, 5.7 points) and the MAL amount of use score (0.52 points; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.93; MCID, 0.50). The other parameters revealed no significant differential effects. One-year follow-up effects were observed only for the ARA. The differences in treatment effect for the ARA and the MAL amount of use scores were clinically relevant for patients with sensory disorders and hemineglect, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed a small but lasting effect of forced use therapy on the dexterity of the affected arm (ARA) and a temporary clinically relevant effect on the amount of use of the affected arm during activities of daily living (MAL amount of use). The effect of forced use therapy was clinically relevant in the subgroups of patients with sensory disorders and hemineglect, respectively.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.30.11.2369

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bots ML, Feskens EJM, Gijsen R, Grobbee DE. Beroerte. In: Maas IAM, Gijsen R, Lobbezoo IE, Poos MJJC, eds. Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning 1997, I: De gezondheidstoestand: een actualisering. Maarssen, Netherlands: Elsevier/De Tijdstroom; 1997:451-462.
  2. Wagenaar RC. Functional Recovery After Stroke [PhD thesis]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU University Press; 1990.
  3. Davies PM. Steps to Follow: A Guide to the Treatment of Adult Hemi- plegia. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag; 1985.
  4. Wagenaar RC, Meijer OG. Effects of stroke rehabilitation, II: a critical review of the literature. J Rehabil Sci. 1991;4:97-108.
  5. Lezak MD. Neurophysiological Assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1995.
  6. Bronfort G. Efficacy of Manual Therapies of the Spine [PhD thesis]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Thesis Publishers Amsterdam; 1997.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Lee, J. H., Wagenaar, R. C., Lankhorst, G. J., Vogelaar, T. W., Devillé, W. L., & Bouter, L. M.
Affiliations
  • From the Departments of Rehabilitation Medicine (J.H. van der L., G.J.L., T.W.V.) and Physical Therapy (R.C.W.), University Hospital Vrije Universiteit, and Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Vrije Universiteit (J.H. van der L., G.J.L., W.L.D., L.M.B.), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Stroke
Published
1999-11
Volume
30
Issue
11
Pages
2369-2375
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2083958711
Cited by
745
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 38
FWCI
21.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Keywords
chronic stroke, upper limb, upper limb function, bimanual training, activities of daily living, hemispatial neglect, sensory disturbances, arm immobilization
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Arm, Chronic Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hemiplegia, Humans, Immobilization, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Motor Skills, Movement, Sensation Disorders, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Physical Therapy Modalities

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