Cochrane · systematic review · CD011887

Action observation for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

Borges, LRDM, Fernandes, ABGS, Oliveira dos Passos, J, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library

Stroke2 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed

SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 3 · 42.9%Very low 2 · 28.6%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Current version only

Action observation versus control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

Population: upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

CD011887.PUB3 (current) · 7 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Arm function assessed by: Action Research Arm Test, Fugl‐Meyer Assessment, Wolf Motor Function Test Action observation vs control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke	no estimate extracted	11 studies · 373 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias
Hand functionassessed by: Box and Block Test Action observation vs control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke	no estimate extracted	5 studies · 178 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias
Dependence on ADLassessed by: Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure Action observation vs control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke	no estimate extracted	7 studies · 302 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Quality of lifeassessed by: Stroke Impact Scale Action observation vs control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 30 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Cortical activation assessed by: fMRI, MEP, EEG Action observation vs control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 102 participants	Ungraded
Motor performanceassessed by: Accelerometer, 3‐dimensional motion analysis system, number of acting Action observation vs control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 91 participants	Ungraded
Adverse effects Action observation vs control: effect on upper limb rehabilitation after stroke	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 16 participants	Ungraded

Action observation therapy versus control: effect on upper limb function post‐treatment for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

Population: people with upper limb rehabilitation after stroke

CD011887.PUB2 · 6 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Arm function ARAT, FMA, WMFT Action observation therapy vs control: effect on upper limb function post‐treatment	no estimate extracted	8 studies · 314 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias
Hand function BBT Action observation therapy vs control: effect on upper limb function post‐treatment	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 132 participants	Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias
Dependence on activities of daily living BI, FIM Action observation therapy vs control: effect on upper limb function post‐treatment	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 226 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Motor performance Accelerometer, 3‐dimensional motion analysis system, number of acting Action observation therapy vs control: effect on upper limb function post‐treatment	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 91 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias
Quality of life Action observation therapy vs control: effect on upper limb function post‐treatment	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 16 participants	Ungraded
Adverse effect Action observation therapy vs control: effect on upper limb function post‐treatment	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 16 participants	Ungraded