MOTOR IMAGERY FOR GAIT REHABILITATION AFTER STROKE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Stroke, Gait, Motor Imagery, Rehabilitation.
Abstract
Introduction: It is estimated that three months after the stroke, 70% of survivors walk at a reduced speed and 20% remain wheelchair bound. Motor Imagery (MI) is defined as a mentally rehearsed task in which movement is imagined but not executed. Separately or combined with physical activity (where the movement is executed), has demonstrated promising results for rehabilitating gait after a stroke, such as increased gait speed.
Objective: To assess the treatment effects of motor imagery for enhancing ability to walk among people following stroke.
Search methods: A search strategy for words and terms was used to identify articles on the following scientific bases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS Bireme, SPORTDiscus, PEDRo and REHABDATA and in clinical trial records the Cochrane Stroke Group, Clinical Trials and Stroke Trials Registry. The study was carried out from July to October 2018, and the last search was made on October 15, 2018.
Selection criteria: We included studies in which the participants had a clinical diagnosis of stroke, presenting gait deficit and studies that used MI to promote gait improvement in stroke survivors.
Data collection and analysis: Data extracted from the studies were used to analyze the risk of bias, the effect of treatment and the quality of the body of evidence.
Main results: Twenty-one studies were included, totaling 747 participants. The primary outcome analyzed was ability to walk. Studies comparing MI alone or combined with another therapy versus an active practice physical control, considering the immediate effect (n = 330), were combined in meta-analysis. Regarding independent walking speed (11 studies), the estimated effect in favor of therapy was not significant (mean difference = 0.21; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.44). It was not possible to analyze the dichotomous variable dependence on personal assistance. The twenty one included studies were categorized as being at risk of low, high or uncertain bias, with a predominance of high risk of bias, and the quality of the body of evidence was considered to be very low, low, and moderate.
Author’s conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to prove that MI is more effective than other therapies in the rehabilitation of gait after stroke. Despite the findings, the choice of MI for the gait rehabilitation process after stroke should be stimulated. New randomized clinical trials should be performed with a more rigorous methodological quality, so that the evidence to be better evaluated.