Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2010 Apr 14;2010(4):CD006432.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006432.pub2.

Simultaneous bilateral training for improving arm function after stroke

Fiona Coupar  1 , Alex Pollock, Frederike van Wijck, Jacqui Morris, Peter Langhorne
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Simultaneous bilateral training for improving arm function after stroke

Fiona Coupar et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Simultaneous bilateral training, the completion of identical activities with both arms simultaneously, is one intervention to improve arm function and reduce impairment.

Objectives: To determine the effects of simultaneous bilateral training for improving arm function after stroke.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched August 2009) and 10 electronic bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED (August 2009). We also searched reference lists and trials registers.

Selection criteria: Randomised trials in adults after stroke, where the intervention was simultaneous bilateral training compared to placebo or no intervention, usual care or other upper limb (arm) interventions. PRIMARY OUTCOMES were performance in activities of daily living (ADL) and functional movement of the upper limb. SECONDARY OUTCOMES were performance in extended activities of daily living and motor impairment of the arm.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. Assessment of methodological quality was undertaken for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessor, intention-to-treat, baseline similarity and loss to follow up.

Main results: We included 18 studies involving 549 relevant participants, of which 14 (421 participants) were included in the analysis (one within both comparisons). Four of the 14 studies compared the effects of bilateral training with usual care.

Primary outcomes: results were not statistically significant for performance in ADL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.63); functional movement of the arm (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.28) or hand (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.42).

Secondary outcomes: no statistically significant results. Eleven of the 14 studies compared the effects of bilateral training with other specific upper limb (arm) interventions.

Primary outcomes: no statistically significant results for performance of ADL (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.08); functional movement of the arm (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.09) or hand (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.09).

Secondary outcomes: one study reported a statistically significant result in favour of another upper limb intervention for performance in extended ADL. No statistically significant differences were found for motor impairment outcomes.

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient good quality evidence to make recommendations about the relative effect of simultaneous bilateral training compared to placebo, no intervention or usual care. We identified evidence that suggests that bilateral training may be no more (or less) effective than usual care or other upper limb interventions for performance in ADL, functional movement of the upper limb or motor impairment outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jacqui Morris and Frederike van Wijck were authors of one of the studies included in this review. Methodological quality for this study was assessed by Fiona Coupar and Alex Pollock.

The work presented here represents the view of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funding bodies.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Bilateral training versus usual care, Outcome 1 Performance in activities of daily living.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Bilateral training versus usual care, Outcome 2 Functional movement of the upper limb.
Analysis 1.3
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Bilateral training versus usual care, Outcome 3 Performance in extended activities of daily living.
Analysis 1.4
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 Bilateral training versus usual care, Outcome 4 Motor impairment of the upper limb.
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Bilateral training versus other upper limb intervention, Outcome 1 Performance in activities of daily living.
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Bilateral training versus other upper limb intervention, Outcome 2 Functional movement of the upper limb.
Analysis 2.3
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 Bilateral training versus other upper limb intervention, Outcome 3 Performance in extended activities of daily living.
Analysis 2.4
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 Bilateral training versus other upper limb intervention, Outcome 4 Motor impairment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006432

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Cauraugh JH, Kim S. Two coupled motor recovery protocols are better than one. Electromyogram ‐triggered neuromuscular stimulation and bilateral movements. Stroke 2002;33:1589‐94. - PubMed
    1. Cauraugh JH, Kim S. Progress toward motor recovery with active neuromuscular stimulation: muscle activation pattern evidence after a stroke. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 2003;207:25‐9. - PubMed
    1. Cauraugh JH, Kim AB, Duley A. Coupled bilateral movements and active neuromuscular stimulation: intralimb transfer evidence during bimanual aiming. Neuroscience Letters 2005;382:39‐44. - PubMed
    1. Cauraugh JH, Kim S‐B, Summers JJ. Chronic stroke longitudinal motor improvements: cumulative learning evidence found in the upper extremity. Cerebrovascular Diseases 2008;25:115‐21. - PubMed
    1. Chang JJ, Tung WL, Wu WL, Su FC. Effect of bilateral reaching on affected arm motor control in stroke ‐ with and without loading on unaffected arm. Disability and Rehabilitation 2006;28(24):1507‐16. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Altschuler EL, Wsidon SB, Stone L, Foster C, Galasko D, Llewellyn DME, et al. Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke with a mirror. Lancet 1998;353:2035‐6. - PubMed
    1. Barnes CL, Smith MB, Harriet E, Kunisch A, Little C, Modica J, et al. A pilot study of bilateral arm training with repetitive auditory cueing in subjects with low functioning upper limb hemiparesis as a result of chronic stroke. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy 2006;4:221.
    1. Cauraugh JH, Kim SB. Chronic stroke motor recovery: duration of active neuromuscular stimulation. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 2003;215:13‐9. - PubMed
    1. Cauraugh JH, Coombes SA, Lodha N, Naik SK, Summers JJ. Upper extremity improvements in chronic stroke: coupled bilateral load training. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2009;27:17‐25. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen MK, Tong RK, Chung KY. Bilateral upper limb training with functional electrical stimulation in patients with chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2009;23(4):357‐65. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

    1. Aimet M, Pokan R, Kotzian S, Musil U, Pelikan J, Skopetz R, et al. Comparison of combined unilateral and bilateral vs an isolated unilateral strength training in stroke patients. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003;35(5):S232.
    1. Miller KJ, Galea P, Kilbreath SL, Phillips BA. Early intensive task‐specific sensory and motor training of the upper limb after acute stroke: a pilot study. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2001;15(4):345‐6.
    1. NINDS 2006. Effects of two different kinds of exercise on stroke rehabilitation. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00108680)2006.
    1. Globas C, Lam JM, Hertler B, Becker C, Whitall J, McCombe‐Waller S, et al. Lesion localisation predicts response to bilateral training. Cerebrovascular Diseases 2008;25:Abst 2.
    2. Whitall J. Upper extremity training for chronic stroke. CRISP database2002.

References to ongoing studies

    1. Cauraugh JH. Effects of different amounts of electrical stimulation + bilateral practice on improving hand function after stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00369668)2006.
    1. Thonnard J‐L. Effect of rehabilitation of patients with a central nervous system lesion. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00837460)2009.

Additional references

    1. Ashburn 1982. A physical assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy 1982;68:109‐13. - PubMed
    1. Ashworth B. Preliminary trial of carisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner 1964;192:540‐2. - PubMed
    1. Barreca S, Wolf SL, Fasoli S, Bohannon R. Treatment interventions for the paretic upper limb of stroke survivors: a critical review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2003;17:220‐6. - PubMed
    1. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Lambert CL. Test‐retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory: a new measure of upper limb function for survivors of stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005;86:1616‐22. - PubMed
    1. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Inter‐rater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy 1987;67:206‐7. - PubMed