Cited by 146Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders

Impairment-oriented training or Bobath therapy for severe arm paresis after stroke:A single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial

Platz, T, Eickhof, C, van Kaick, S, Engel, U, Pinkowski, C, Kalok, S, Pause, M·2005·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of augmented exercise therapy time for arm rehabilitation as either Bobath therapy or the impairment-oriented training (Arm BASIS training) in stroke patients with arm severe paresis. DESIGN: Single blind, multicentre randomized control trial. SETTING: Three inpatient neurorehabilitation centres. SUBJECTS: Sixty-two anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to three group: (A) no augmented exercise therapy time, (B) augmented exercise therapy time as Bobath therapy and (C) augmented exercise therapy time as Arm BASIS training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Fugl-Meyer arm motor score. Secondary measure: Action Research Arm Test (ARA). Ancillary measures: Fugl-Meyer arm sensation and joint motion/pain scores and the Ashworth Scale (elbow flexors). RESULTS: An overall effect of augmented exercise therapy time on Fugl-Meyer scores after four weeks was not corroborated (mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of change scores: no augmented exercise therapy time (n=20) 8.8, 5.2-12.3; augmented exercise therapy time (n=40) 9.9, 6.8-13.9; p = 0.2657). The group who received the augmented exercise therapy time as Arm BASIS training (n=20) had, however, higher gains than the group receiving the augmented exercise therapy time as Bobath therapy (n=20) (mean and 95% CI of change scores: Bobath 7.2, 2.6-11.8; BASIS 12.6, 8.4-16.8; p = 0.0432). Passive joint motion/pain deteriorated less in the group who received BASIS training (mean and 95% CI of change scores: Bobath -3.2, -5.2 to -1.1; BASIS 0.1, -1.8-2.0; p = 0.0090). ARA, Fugl-Meyer arm sensation, and Ashworth Scale scores were not differentially affected. CONCLUSIONS: The augmented exercise therapy time as Arm BASIS training enhanced selective motor control. Type of training was more relevant for recovery of motor control than therapeutic time spent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/0269215505cr904oa

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 146

Authors
Platz, T., Eickhof, C., van Kaick, S., Engel, U., Pinkowski, C., Kalok, S., & Pause, M.
Affiliations
  • Stiftung Charité (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Segeberger Kliniken (DE)
  • Neurologisches Rehabilitationszentrum, Magdeburg, Germany
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2005-11
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
714-724
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W1968476075
Cited by
146
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.20
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
stroke, arm paresis, Bobath therapy, motor rehabilitation, ischemic stroke, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Action Research Arm Test, selective motor control
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Arm, Disability Evaluation, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paresis, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, 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