IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0216357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of bilateral and unilateral upper limb training in people with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Pei-ming Chen
  • Patrick W H Kwong
  • Claudia K Y Lai
  • Shamay S M Ng

Abstract

Background and objectives: Bilateral upper limb training (BULT) and unilateral upper limb training (UULT) are two effective strategies for the recovery of upper limb motor function after stroke. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the improvements in motor impairment and functional performances of people with stroke after BULT and UULT. Research design and methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria from CINAHL, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and PubMed. The outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and Box and Block Test (BBT), which are validated measures of upper limb function. Results: Twenty-one studies involving 842 subjects with stroke were included. Compared with UULT, BULT yielded a significantly greater mean difference (MD) in the FMA-UE (MD = 2.21, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.12 to 4.30, p = 0.04; I2 = 86%, p

Suggested Citation

  • Pei-ming Chen & Patrick W H Kwong & Claudia K Y Lai & Shamay S M Ng, 2019. "Comparison of bilateral and unilateral upper limb training in people with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216357
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216357
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216357&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0216357?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.