Cited by 51Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders

Bobath Concept versus constraint-induced movement therapy to improve arm functional recovery in stroke patients:A randomized controlled trial

Huseyinsinoglu, Burcu Ersoz, Ozdincler, Arzu Razak, Krespi, Yakup·2012·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the Bobath Concept and constraint-induced movement therapy on arm functional recovery among stroke patients with a high level of function on the affected side. DESIGN: A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient physiotherapy department of a stroke unit. SUBJECTS: A total of 24 patients were randomized to constraint-induced movement therapy or Bobath Concept group. INTERVENTION: The Bobath Concept group was treated for 1 hour whereas the constraint-induced movement therapy group received training for 3 hours per day during 10 consecutive weekdays. MAIN MEASURES: Main measures were the Motor Activity Log-28, the Wolf Motor Function Test, the Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients and the Functional Independence Measure. RESULTS: The two groups were found to be homogeneous based on demographic variables and baseline measurements. Significant improvements were seen after treatment only in the 'Amount of use' and 'Quality of movement' subscales of the Motor Activity Log-28 in the constraint-induced movement therapy group over the the Bobath Concept group (P = 0.003; P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in Wolf Motor Function Test 'Functional ability' (P = 0.137) and 'Performance time' (P = 0.922), Motor Evaluation Scale for Arm in Stroke Patients (P = 0.947) and Functional Independence Measure scores (P = 0.259) between the two intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Constraint-induced movement therapy and the Bobath Concept have similar efficiencies in improving functional ability, speed and quality of movement in the paretic arm among stroke patients with a high level of function. Constraint-induced movement therapy seems to be slightly more efficient than the Bobath Concept in improving the amount and quality of affected arm use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269215511431903

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huseyinsinoglu, B. E., Ozdincler, A. R., & Krespi, Y.
Affiliations
  • Stroke Unit, Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Istanbul University School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital (TR)
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2012-01-18
Volume
26
Issue
8
Pages
705-715
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2137793460
Cited by
51
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Keywords
Bobath concept, constraint-induced movement therapy, stroke, paretic arm, motor rehabilitation, arm use, motor function, functional independence
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Arm, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rehabilitation, Single-Blind Method, Recovery of Function, Exercise Movement Techniques

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