<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[TBI Rehabilitation]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://tbirehabilitation.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Kostas Pantremenos]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://tbirehabilitation.wordpress.com/author/onganalop/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[[Abstract] Early versus late-applied constraint-induced movement therapy: A multisite, randomized controlled trial with a 12-month&nbsp;follow-up]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<h2 class="article-section__header">Abstract</h2>
<section id="pri1689-sec-0001" class="article-section article-body-section">
<h3>Background and Purpose</h3>
<p>A direct comparison between the effects of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) applied early after stroke and that of CIMT applied in the chronic phase has not been conducted. This study aimed to compare the long-term effects of CIMT applied 6 months after stroke with the results of CIMT applied within 28 days post-stroke.</p>
</section>
<section id="pri1689-sec-0002" class="article-section article-body-section">
<h3>Methods</h3>
<p>This study was a single-blinded, multicentre, randomized controlled trial with a crossover design. Forty-seven patients received CIMT either early (within 28 days) or 6 months after stroke. Both groups received standard rehabilitation and were tested at 5 time points. The primary outcome measure was Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT); the secondary measures were Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT), the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) of the upper extremity, Stroke Impact Scale, and Modified Rankin Scale (MRS).</p>
</section>
<section id="pri1689-sec-0003" class="article-section article-body-section">
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>Compared with baseline data, both groups showed significant improvements in the primary and secondary outcome measures after 12 months. No significant differences between the 2 treatment groups were found before and after the delayed intervention group received CIMT at 6 months and during the 12-month follow-up. Both groups recovered considerably and showed only minor impairment (median FMA score of 64) after 6 months. The early intervention group showed an initially faster recovery curve of WMFT, NHPT, and MRS scores.</p>
</section>
<section id="pri1689-sec-0004" class="article-section article-body-section">
<h3>Discussion</h3>
<p>In contrast to most CIMT studies, our study could not find an effect of CIMT applied 6 months after stroke. Our results indicate that commencing CIMT early is as good as delayed intervention in the long term, specifically in this group of patients who might have reached a ceiling effect during the first 6 months after stroke. Nevertheless, the early CIMT intervention group showed a faster recovery curve than the delayed intervention group, which can be a clinically important finding for patients in the acute phase.</p>
</section>
<p>Source: <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pri.1689/full">Early versus late-applied constraint-induced movement therapy: A multisite, randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up &#8211; Stock &#8211; 2017 &#8211; Physiotherapy Research International &#8211; Wiley Online Library</a></p>
]]></html></oembed>