An interventional study of Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy in Stroke Patients, sponsored by Istanbul University. Status unknown at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-07-10.
Sponsored by Istanbul University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The investigators aimed To analyze effect of modified constraint induced movement therapy on upper extremity functions and quality of life of subacute and chronic phase stroke patients with right/left hemisphere damage. A total of 40 patients (20 patients with right hemiplegia and 20 patients with left hemiplegia) were enrolled in our prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Patients were randomized in to three groups. The first group consists of 10 right hemiplegia patients and the second group consists of 10 left hemiplegia patients. First and second group of patients had 10 sessions of constraint induced movement therapy as groups of 4, 5 days a week. Each patient had modified constraint induced movement therapy 1 hour a day with professional support and performed home program by themselves 3 hours a day. Patients' less affected hands were limited by the help of a glove %50 of the time they were awake. Patients were examined before treatment, just after treatment and 3 months after treatment using Box-Block Test, cubes lined, card turned and object gripped in 30 seconds, time it takes to grip and carry a water filled glass to their mouth and putting it back, Motor Activity Log (MAL), Stroke Impact Scale, Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment Scale.
For the rehabilitation of the paretic upper extremity, the use of constraint induced movement therapy and the use of modified constraint induced movement therapy are the most effective treatment strategies. The investigators aimed To analyze effect of modified constraint induced movement therapy on upper extremity functions and quality of life of subacute and chronic phase stroke patients with right/left hemisphere damage.
A total of 40 patients (20 patients with right hemiplegia and 20 patients with left hemiplegia) were enrolled in our prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Patients were randomized in to three groups. The first group consists of 10 right hemiplegia patients and the second group consists of 10 left hemiplegia patients. First and second group of patients had 10 sessions of constraint induced movement therapy as groups of 4, 5 days a week. Each patient had modified constraint induced movement therapy 1 hour a day with professional support and performed home program by themselves 3 hours a day. Patients' less affected hands were limited by the help of a glove %50 of the time they were awake. 10 patients with right hemiplegia and 10 patients with left hemiplegia formed the control group and these patients were in line for inpatient rehabilitation programme. Patients were examined before treatment, just after treatment and 3 months after treatment using Box-Block Test, cubes lined, card turned and object gripped in 30 seconds, time it takes to grip and carry a water filled glass to their mouth and putting it back, Motor Activity Log (MAL), Stroke Impact Scale, Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment Scale. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test and Friedman test were used for intragroup comparison of data and Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare data between groups.
7,286 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,007 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 40 is below the median of 50 across 5,369 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.
Browse Stroke studies →Istanbul University is the lead sponsor of 496 studies on the registry; 79 are open to participants now.
Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 1 (20%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients in the left hemiplegia group had 10 sessions of constraint induced movement therapy as groups of 4, 5 days a week. Each patient had modified constraint induced movement therapy 1 hour a day with professional support and performed home program by themselves 3 hours a day. Patients' less affected hands were limited by the help of a glove %50 of the time they were awake
Other: Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy
Patients in the right hemiplegia group had 10 sessions of constraint induced movement therapy as groups of 4, 5 days a week. Each patient had modified constraint induced movement therapy 1 hour a day with professional support and performed home program by themselves 3 hours a day. Patients' less affected hands were limited by the help of a glove %50 of the time they were awake
Other: Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy
10 patients with right hemiplegia and 10 patients with left hemiplegia formed the control group and these patients were in line for inpatient rehabilitation programme.
constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is characterized by the restraint of the less effected upper limb accompanied by the shaping and repetitive task-oriented training of more affected upper extremity.
Motor Activity Log
Motor Activity Log is developed to determine the frequency and quality of use of the affected arm It consists of two scales that question how often the affected side's upper extremity is used for each activity during the 28-day activity (Usage Quantity Scale) and how well it can perform the activity if it uses it. On both scales, the patient scores between 0-5. The score that can be obtained is between 0-5 points and the high score indicates good frequency of use and good quality of movement.
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
Motor Activity Log
Motor Activity Log is developed to determine the frequency and quality of use of the affected arm It consists of two scales that question how often the affected side's upper extremity is used for each activity during the 28-day activity (Usage Quantity Scale) and how well it can perform the activity if it uses it. On both scales, the patient scores between 0-5. The score that can be obtained is between 0-5 points and the high score indicates good frequency of use and good quality of movement.
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
Motor Activity Log
Motor Activity Log is developed to determine the frequency and quality of use of the affected arm It consists of two scales that question how often the affected side's upper extremity is used for each activity during the 28-day activity (Usage Quantity Scale) and how well it can perform the activity if it uses it. On both scales, the patient scores between 0-5. The score that can be obtained is between 0-5 points and the high score indicates good frequency of use and good quality of movement.
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment Scale
The Fugl-Meyer Motor Rating Scale, which assesses strength, reflexes and coordination, reflects the stages of motor development. In the evaluation, each item is scored over 2 points. In the upper extremity assessment, 53-66 points are considered as full capacity, 48-52 points are defined as capacity, 32-47 points are considered as limited capacity, and 31 points are considered as under-capacity.
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment Scale
The Fugl-Meyer Motor Rating Scale, which assesses strength, reflexes and coordination, reflects the stages of motor development. In the evaluation, each item is scored over 2 points. In the upper extremity assessment, 53-66 points are considered as full capacity, 48-52 points are defined as capacity, 32-47 points are considered as limited capacity, and 31 points are considered as under-capacity.
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment Scale
The Fugl-Meyer Motor Rating Scale, which assesses strength, reflexes and coordination, reflects the stages of motor development. In the evaluation, each item is scored over 2 points. In the upper extremity assessment, 53-66 points are considered as full capacity, 48-52 points are defined as capacity, 32-47 points are considered as limited capacity, and 31 points are considered as under-capacity.
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
Box-Block Test
Box-Block Test
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
Box-Block Test
Box-Block Test
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
Box-Block Test
Box-Block Test
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-cubes lined
cubes lined in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
exercise assessment parameters-cubes lined
cubes lined in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-cubes lined
cubes lined in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-card turned
card turned in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
exercise assessment parameters-card turned
card turned in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-card turned
card turned in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-object gripped
object gripped in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
exercise assessment parameters-object gripped
object gripped in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-object gripped
object gripped in 30 seconds
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-water
time it takes to grip and carry a water filled glass to their mouth and putting it back
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
exercise assessment parameters-water
time it takes to grip and carry a water filled glass to their mouth and putting it back
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
exercise assessment parameters-water
time it takes to grip and carry a water filled glass to their mouth and putting it back
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
Stroke Impact Scale
Stroke Impact Scale 3,0; The aim of the study is to evaluate the perception of the quality of life after stroke by the patients themselves or their caregivers. It is a stroke-specific, patient-centered quality of life measure. It consists of 8 subsections and 59 questions. Each question is scored by evaluating the difficulty experienced in the last week on a 5-point scale. It also includes the assessment of post-stroke recovery perception with a visual analog scale of 0-100 points (0: no improvement, 100: complete recovery)
Time frame: Patients were examined at baseline
Stroke Impact Scale
Stroke Impact Scale 3,0; The aim of the study is to evaluate the perception of the quality of life after stroke by the patients themselves or their caregivers. It is a stroke-specific, patient-centered quality of life measure. It consists of 8 subsections and 59 questions. Each question is scored by evaluating the difficulty experienced in the last week on a 5-point scale. It also includes the assessment of post-stroke recovery perception with a visual analog scale of 0-100 points (0: no improvement, 100: complete recovery)
Time frame: Patients were examined 2 weeks after baseline
Stroke Impact Scale
Stroke Impact Scale 3,0; The aim of the study is to evaluate the perception of the quality of life after stroke by the patients themselves or their caregivers. It is a stroke-specific, patient-centered quality of life measure. It consists of 8 subsections and 59 questions. Each question is scored by evaluating the difficulty experienced in the last week on a 5-point scale. It also includes the assessment of post-stroke recovery perception with a visual analog scale of 0-100 points (0: no improvement, 100: complete recovery)
Time frame: Patients were examined 3 months after baseline
Plan to share: No
This study is status unknown, as verified in Jul 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Istanbul University