| Literature DB >> 27942154 |
Eom-Ji Park1, Soon-Hyung Baek1, Soohee Park2.
Abstract
[Purpose] To provide data for systematic intervention plans in occupational therapy practice by objectivity showing the value of mirror therapy interventions in children with cerebral palsy.Entities:
Keywords: Cerebral palsy; Mirror therapy; Systematic review
Year: 2016 PMID: 27942154 PMCID: PMC5140834 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.28.3227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
PICO for analysis
| Author (year) | Participants | Interventions | Comparisons | Outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dx | Exp/Con | ||||
| Jaume-i-Capo et al. 2014 | CP | 8/32 | CP group: Mirror feedback and no mirror feedback | Normal children: mirror feedback and no mirror feedback | Significant improvements in the experimental group in time between starting time and finishing the mirror program. |
| Smorenburg et al. 2012 | SHCP | 13/10 | Unimanual matching task, mirror therapy group | Bimanual matching task, no-mirror therapy group | The group performing bimanual tasks showed significant improvement when conducting mirror movements. |
| Adler et al. 2015 | SHCP | 9/9 | Mirror movement: hand flexion and extension thumb-finger opposition, forearm supination/pronation | No-mirror movement | Mirror movement had a negative effect on the activity of both hands and the time to perform activities daily of living. |
| Gygax et al. 2011 | SHCP | 5/5 | Group A, 9-week session 3 weeks −mirror therapy 6 weeks −no mirror therapy 9 weeks −wash out | Group B, 9-week session 3 weeks −no mirror therapy 6 weeks −mirror therapy 9 weeks −wash out | Mirror movement could improved muscle strength (grasp, pinch) in children with hemiplegia, as well as functional arm movement. |
| Smorenburg et al. 2013 | SHCP | 7/9 | Mirror group: bimanual activity with mirror visual feedback | Screen group: Practiced movement with opaque screen between arms | In both groups, improvements in accuracy in matching paralyzed arms. |
| Feltham et al. 2010 | SHCP | 8/12 | CP group: motor performance with glass, opaque screen, mirror; affected and unaffected sides | Normal children group: motor performance with glass, opaque screen, mirror; affected and unaffected side | When measuring myotility with EMG, and comparing the paralyzed and non-paralyzed limbs in CP, muscle activity in the elbows and shoulders was greater. |
| Feltham et al. 2009 | SHCP | 8/14 | CP group: motor performance with glass, opaque screen, mirror; affected and unaffected side | Normal children group: motor performance with glass, opaque screen, mirror; affected and unaffected side | After intervention, the average coordination pattern in the cerebral palsy group showed a similar result to that of children with normal development. |
| Norton et al. 2008 | SHCP | 1/- | TMS, MRI, fMRI, EMG, and force measurements were used to obtain information about the motor pathways responsible for the mirror movements | Mirror movement showed an effect in reorganizing the cerebral cortex in the neonatal period and may be a partial solution to decreased brain tissue mass. | |
| Smorenburg et al. 2011 | SHCP | 14/- | All participants performed under three visual conditions: no-vision, screen, mirror visual feedback | Matching accuracy was significantly increased in the mirror visual feedback group. | |
Dx: diagnosis; Exp: experimental group; Con: control group; SHCP: spasticity hemiplegia cerebral palsy; CP: cerebral palsy; TMS: transcranial magnetic stimulation; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; fMRI: functional MRI; EMG: evoked electromyograms
Level of evidence: analysised experiment
| Level of evidence | Frequency (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| I | Randomized control trial, systematic review, meta-analysis | 0 (0.0) |
| II | Tow gorups nonrandomized studies | 7 (77.8) |
| III | One group nonrandomized studies | 1 (11.1) |
| IV | Single-subject design, surveys | 1 (11.1) |
| V | Case reports, narrative literature reviews, qualitative research | 0 (0.0) |
| Total | 9 (100.0) | |
Frequency analysis of contents of comparative intervention
| Comparative intervention | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| No-mirror | 5 (35.7) |
| Opaque screen | 4 (28.6) |
| Glass | 2 (14.3) |
| Bimanual acitivity | 1 (7.1) |
| Pre-post comparison | 1 (7.1) |
| No comparative intervention | 1 (7.1) |
| Total | 14 (100.0) |
Evaluation analysis to measure of effects of interventions
| Test tool | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|
| EMG | 4 (21.1) |
| MRD | 2 (10.5) |
| Tardieu scale | 2 (10.5) |
| WeeFIM | 2 (10.5) |
| AHA | 1 (5.3) |
| JTHFT | 1 (5.3) |
| MACS | 1 (5.3) |
| MRI | 1 (5.3) |
| fMRI | 1 (5.3) |
| QUEST | 1 (5.3) |
| Strength (grip, pinch) | 1 (5.3) |
| Time to start, Time to complete | 1 (5.3) |
| TMS | 1 (5.3) |
| Total | 19 (100) |
EMG: evoked electromyograms, MRD: maximum reaching distance, WeeFIM: Wee Functional Independence Measure, AHA: Assisting Hand Assessment, JTHFT: Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, MACS: Manual Ability Classification System, MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI: functioning magnetic resonance imaging, QUEST: Quality of Upper Extremity Skills Test, TMS: transcranial magnetic stimulation