Randomized controlled trial reveals improved daily activities and motor function in stroke survivors, suggesting mirror therapy's potential.
Background: Stroke stands as a prominent contributor to enduring disability, inflicting motor and functional limitations upon survivors, significantly impacting their quality of life. Mirror therapy, a cost-effective and easy-to-use method, is increasingly employed in stroke rehabilitation to alleviate sensory-motor impairments and expedite limb recovery. This promising technique harnesses visual feedback to enhance neuroplasticity and boost post-stroke motor function. Method s: A randomized controlled trial was conducted among thirty stroke survivors; participants were assigned to either a mirror therapy (MT) group (n=15) or a standard rehabilitation group (n=15). The MT group underwent five 15-minute daily sessions for 14 days. Baseline data, including Barthel Index and Rivermead Mobility assessments, were gathered pre-intervention. Three-week post-intervention assessments targeted to investigate outcomes of MT in motor mobility and daily living activities in functional independence among stroke survivors. Results: A notable age difference was observed between the intervention (59±7.78) and comparison groups (58.8±6.50). The intervention group showed slightly more effects in Gross Function (d=0.162 vs. 0.132), Leg & Trunk (d=0.191 vs. 0.219), and Arm Function (d=0.323 vs. 0.205). Barthel Index effect size increased from small (d=0.261, CI 0.217–1.393) to large (d=0.172, CI 1.850–4.339). ANCOVA indicated no heteroscedasticity (F=0.704, p>0.05). A strong correlation (r=0.98) was found between daily functioning and motor function gains. Conclusion: MT effectively enhances daily activities in stroke survivors. However, statistical analysis showed no significant difference between groups in Rivermead scores (t = 0.17, p = 0.87). Yet, additional longitudinal studies are needed to thoroughly assess its impact on motor function improvement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: