Combined somatosensory and motor training to improve upper limb function following stroke: a systematic scoping review

References

• Frey SH, Fogassi L, Grafton S, et al. Neurological principles and rehabilitation of action disorders: computation, anatomy, and physiology (CAP) model. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(5_suppl):6S–20S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carey LM. Somatosensory Loss after Stroke. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med. 1995;7(1):51–91.
   Google Scholar
• Penfield W, Boldrey E. Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain. 1937;60(4):389–443.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen T, Penfield W. The human sensorimotor cortex as studied by electrical stimulation. Fed Proc. 1947;6(1 Pt 2):184.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, et al. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(9):2181–2186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey LM, Matyas TA. Frequency of discriminative sensory loss in the hand after stroke in a rehabilitation setting. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(3):257–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turville M, Carey LM, Matyas TA, et al. Change in functional arm use is associated with somatosensory skills after sensory retraining poststroke. Am J Occup Ther. 2017;71(3):7103190070p1–7103190070p9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey LM, Matyas TA, Baum C. Effects of somatosensory impairment on participation after stroke. Am J Occup Ther. 2018;72(3):7203205100p1–7203205100p10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalra L. Stroke rehabilitation 2009: old chestnuts and new insights. Stroke. 2010;41(2):e88–e90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey L, Macdonell R, Matyas TA. SENSe: study of the effectiveness of neurorehabilitation on sensation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(4):304–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerley R, Borich M, Oddo CM, et al. Insights and perspectives on sensory-motor integration and rehabilitation. Multisens Res. 2016;29(6-7):607–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doyle S, Bennett S, Fasoli SE, et al. Interventions for sensory impairment in the upper limb after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(6):CD006331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11):CD010820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87987.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey LM, Lamp G, Turville M. The State-of-the-Science on somatosensory function and its impact on daily life in adults and older adults, and following stroke: a scoping review. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;36(2 Suppl):27s–41s.
   Google Scholar
• Valdes K, Naughton N, Algar L. Sensorimotor interventions and assessments for the hand and wrist: a scoping review. J Hand Ther. 2014;27(4):272–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Sci. 2010;5:69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Standards for reporting systematic reviews. In: Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, et al., editors. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews [Internet]. Washington (DC), USA: National Academies Press; 2011. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209507/.
   Google Scholar
• network E. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Toronto, Ontario; 2015. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#55.
   Google Scholar
• Guise JM, Chang C, Butler M, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 1: an introduction to a series of articles that provide guidance and tools for reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;90:6–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guise JM, Butler M, Chang C, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 7: PRISMA-CI elaboration and explanation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;90:51–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guise JM, Butler ME, Chang C, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement and checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;90:43–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aho K, Harmsen P, Hatano S, et al. Cerebrovascular disease in the community: results of a WHO collaborative study. Bull World Health Organ. 1980;58(1):113–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDermid JC. An introduction to evidence-based practice for hand therapists. J Hand Ther. 2004;17(2):105–117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. “The Oxford Levels of Evidence” (March 2009). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. [cited 2014 Oct 29]. Available from: https://www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-lev els-evidence-march-2009/
   Google Scholar
• Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Durlak JA. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(9):917–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming G. Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. NewYork (NY): Routledge; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett SD, Heinemann AW, Libin A, et al. Small N designs for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(1):175–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeiser Logan L, Hickman RR, Harris SR, et al. Single-subject research design: recommendations for levels of evidence and quality rating. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(2):99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byl NN, Pitsch EA, Abrams GM. Functional outcomes can vary by dose: learning-based sensorimotor training for patients stable poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(5):494–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanubol R, Wongphaet P, Chavanich N, et al. A randomized controlled trial of cognitive sensory motor training therapy on the recovery of arm function in acute stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(12):1096–1104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannenbaum RM, Dykes RW. Sensory loss in the hand after sensory stroke: therapeutic rationale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(10):833–839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Diego C, Puig S, Navarro X. A sensorimotor stimulation program for rehabilitation of chronic stroke patients. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2013;31(4):361–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter SM, Crome P, Sim J, et al. Effects of mobilization and tactile stimulation on recovery of the hemiplegic upper limb: a series of replicated single-system studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(10):2003–2010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter SM, Hammett L, Ball S, et al. Dose–response study of mobilisation and tactile stimulation therapy for the upper extremity early after stroke: a phase I trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(4):314–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molier BI, Prange GB, Krabben T, et al. Effect of position feedback during task-oriented upper-limb training after stroke: five-case pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(9):1109–1118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smania N, Montagnana B, Faccioli S, et al. Rehabilitation of somatic sensation and related deficit of motor control in patients with pure sensory stroke1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(11):1692–1702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song BK, Chung SM, Hwang BY. The effects of somatosensory training focused on the hand on hand function, postural control and ADL of stroke patients with unlateral spatial neglect and sensorimotor deficits. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(3):297–300.
   Google Scholar
• Winter JM, Crome P, Sim J, et al. Effects of mobilization and tactile stimulation on chronic upper-limb sensorimotor dysfunction after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(4):693–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey L. SENSe: helping stroke survivors regain a sense of touch: a manual for therapists. Melbourne: Florey Neuroscience Institutes; 2012. p. 202.
   Google Scholar
• Carr JH, Shepherd RB. Neurological rehabilitation. Optimising motor performance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• French B, Thomas LH, Leathley MJ, et al. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD006073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller FG, Brody H. Understanding and harnessing placebo effects: clearing away the underbrush. J Med Philos. 2011;36(1):69–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. “The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence”. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. [cited 2014 Oct 29]. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence- 2.1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Winter J, Hunter S, Sim J, et al. Hands-on therapy interventions for upper limb motor dysfunction following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;15(6):Cd006609.
   Google Scholar
• Carey L, Polatajko H, Connor L, et al. Stroke rehabilitation: a learning perspective. In: Stroke rehabilitation: insights from neuroscience and imaging. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Bornschlegl M, Asanuma H. Importance of the projection from the sensory to the motor cortex for recovery of motor function following partial thalamic lesion in the monkey. Brain Res. 1987;437(1):121–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang CE, Lohse KR, Birkenmeier RL. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28(6):549–555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummelsheim H, Hauptmann B, Neumann S. Influence of physiotherapeutic facilitation techniques on motor evoked potentials in centrally paretic hand extensor muscles. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;97(1):18–28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mima T, Sadato N, Yazawa S, et al. Brain structures related to active and passive finger movements in man. Brain. 1999;122(10):1989–1997.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nudo RJ. Adaptive plasticity in motor cortex: implications for rehabilitation after brain injury. J Rehabil Med. 2003;(41 Suppl):7–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pekna M, Pekny M, Nilsson M. Modulation of neural plasticity as a basis for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2012;43(10):2819–2828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roiha K, Kirveskari E, Kaste M, et al. Reorganization of the primary somatosensory cortex during stroke recovery. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(2):339–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossini PM, Tecchio F, Pizzella V, et al. On the reorganization of sensory hand areas after mono-hemispheric lesion: a functional (MEG)/anatomical (MRI) integrative study. Brain Res. 1998;782(1-2):153–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaechter JD, Moore CI, Connell BD, et al. Structural and functional plasticity in the somatosensory cortex of chronic stroke patients. Brain. 2006;129(Pt 10):2722–2733.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laible M, Grieshammer S, Seidel G, et al. Association of activity changes in the primary sensory cortex with successful motor rehabilitation of the hand following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(7):881–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H, Song L, Zhang T. Changes in brain activation in stroke patients after mental practice and physical exercise: a functional MRI study. Neural Regen Res. 2014;9(15):1474–1484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter SM, Crome P, Sim J, et al. Development of treatment schedules for research: a structured review to identify methodologies used and a worked example of ‘mobilisation and tactile stimulation’ for stroke patients. Physiotherapy. 2006;92(4):195–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subramanian SK, Massie CL, Malcolm MP, et al. Does provision of extrinsic feedback result in improved motor learning in the upper limb poststroke? A systematic review of the evidence. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(2):113–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Vliet PM, Wulf G. Extrinsic feedback for motor learning after stroke: what is the evidence? Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(13-14):831–840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman JS, Wood RE. Faded versus increasing feedback, task variability trajectories, and transfer of training. Hum Perform. 2009;22(1):64–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman JS, Wood RE, Hendrickx M. Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(2):248–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lhyle KG, Kulhavy RW. Feedback processing and error correction. J Educ Psychol. 1987;79(3):320–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, et al. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(4):347–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using meta-data to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2053–2058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark B, Whitall J, Kwakkel G, et al. Time spent in rehabilitation and effect on measures of activity after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(3):CD012612.
   Google Scholar
• Nudo RJ. Recovery after brain injury: mechanisms and principles. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(1):S225–S239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. New evidence for therapies in stroke rehabilitation. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2013;15(6):331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobkin BH. Strategies for stroke rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2004;3(9):528–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey L. Directions for stroke rehabilitation clinical practice and research. In: Carey L, editor. Stroke rehabilitation: insights from neuroscience and imaging. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 240–249.
   Google Scholar
• Carey LM. Loss of somatic sensation. In: Selzer N, Clarke, S., Cohen, L., Kwakkel, G., Miller. R, editor. Textbook of neural repair and rehabilitation. Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 298–311.
   Google Scholar
• Platz T, Eickhof C, van Kaick S, et al. Impairment-oriented training or Bobath therapy for severe arm paresis after stroke: a single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(7):714–724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platz T, van Kaick S, Mehrholz J, et al. Best conventional therapy versus modular impairment-oriented training for arm paresis after stroke: a single-blind, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(7):706–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coupar F, Pollock A, Rowe P, et al. Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(4):291–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gescheider GA, Beiles EJ, Checkosky CM, et al. The effects of aging on information-processing channels in the sense of touch: II. Temporal summation in the P channel. Somatosens Mot Res. 1994;11(4):359–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens JC, Cruz LA. Spatial acuity of touch: ubiquitous decline with aging revealed by repeated threshold testing. Somatosens Mot Res. 1996;13(1):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contreras-Vidal JL, Teulings HL, Stelmach GE. Elderly subjects are impaired in spatial coordination in fine motor control. Acta psychologica. 1998;100(1-2):25–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidler RD, Alberts JL, Stelmach GE. Changes in multi-joint performance with age. Motor control. 2002;6(1):19–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diggles-Buckles V. Age-related slowing. In: Stelmach GE, Hömberg V, editors. Sensorimotor impairment in the elderly. Norwell (MA): Kluwer Academic; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321(7262):694–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunst CJ, Hamby DW, Trivette CM. Guidelines for calculating effect sizes for practice-based research synthesis. Centerscope. 2004;3(1):1–10. Available at: http://www.researchtopractice.info/productCenterscope.php
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar