Cited by 136Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders

Meaningful Task-Specific Training (MTST) for stroke rehabilitation:A randomized controlled trial

Narayan Arya, Kamal, Verma, Rajesh, Garg, R.K., Sharma, V.P., Agarwal, Monika, Aggarwal, G.G.·2012·Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The upper extremity motor deficit is one of the functional challenges in post stroke patients. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the meaningful task-specific training (MTST) on the upper extremity motor recovery during the subacute phase after a stroke. METHOD: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial in the neurology department of a university hospital and occupational therapy unit of a rehabilitation institute. A convenience sample of 103 people, 4 to 24 weeks (mean, 12.15 weeks) after the stroke, was randomized into 2 groups (MTST, 51; standard training group, 52). Subjects in the Brunnstrom stage of arm recovery of 2 to 5 were included in the study. Ninety-five participants completed the 8-week follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were assigned to receive either the MTST or dose-matched standard training program based on the Brunnstrom stage and Bobath neurodevelopmental technique, 4 to 5 days a week for 4 weeks. Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Graded Wolf Motor Function Test (GWMFT), and Motor Activity Log (MAL) were outcome measures RESULTS: The MTST group showed a positive improvement in the mean scores on the outcome measures at post and follow-up assessments in comparison to the control group. Further, statistically significant differences were observed in changes between the groups at post and follow-up assessment for FMA, ARAT, GWMFT, and MAL. CONCLUSION: The MTST produced statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in the upper extremity motor recovery of the patients who had a subacute stroke.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1310/tsr1903-193

Cites

59 of 59 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
Narayan Arya, K., Verma, R., Garg, R. K., Sharma, V. P., Agarwal, M., & Aggarwal, G. G.
Affiliations
University of Lucknow (IN)
Venue
Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
Published
2012-05
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
193-211
ISSN
  • 1074-9357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5119
OpenAlex
W2017179694
Cited by
136
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Topics in Stroke 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 rehabilitation, upper limb motor recovery, subacute stroke, Brunnstrom stages, occupational therapy intervention, motor outcome
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Arm, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Skills, Neuronal Plasticity, Paresis, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Recovery of Function, Stroke, 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