Abstract
Purpose
This review systematically explores and summarise the effects of motor imagery training (MIT) compared to conventional therapy on gait performance in individuals after stroke.
Materials and methods
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched in five electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, OVID Nursing and CINAHL) from inception to 30 December 2022. Studies investigating MITs, targeted at individuals after stroke were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics.
Results
Sixteen studies were included. Compared with ‘routine methods of treatment or training’, the meta-analyses showed that MIT was more effective in improving cadence immediately post intervention (SMD: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.85, p = 0.0001, I2 = 25%) and at 1- or 2-months post intervention (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.35, 1.20, p = 0.0004, I2 = 46%). The results also showed that MIT improves the step length of the affected side and the unaffected side at 1- or 2-months post intervention. Separate meta-analyses were also conducted on different tests of walking endurance (assessed by the 6-Minute Walk Test) and functional mobility (assessed by the Timed-Up-and-Go test).
Conclusions
MIT effectively improved gait performance. The findings in individuals after stroke remain inconclusive due to significant heterogeneity in included studies.
IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION
Restoring gait performance and daily functional abilities is an important goal of post-stroke rehabilitation.
Motor imagery training (MIT) may be a promising method to improve gait restoration and is expected to provide another option for the effective rehabilitation of stroke patients.
This review highlights the limited research on MIT and thus the limited evidence to guide clinical rehabilitation.
In the stroke rehabilitation, clinical specialists may consider incorporating MIT into the treatment programme to improve patients’ gait performance and ensure effective early lower limb rehabilitation.
Ethics approval
All procedures were in accordance with the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee of the University (Approval number: IRB00001052-22116). This study was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Patient and public involvement
Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).