| Literature DB >> 34113305 |
Wen-Hao Huang1, Zu-Lin Dou1, Hui-Min Jin2, Ying Cui3, Xin Li1, Qing Zeng4.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of music-supported therapy for stroke patients' hand function.Entities:
Keywords: hand function; music supported therapy; randomized controlled trial; stroke—diagnosis; systematic review
Year: 2021 PMID: 34113305 PMCID: PMC8185294 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.641023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1A summary of the PRISMA flow of the study selection process.
Summary of the included studies and the detail of intervention and measurement.
| Raglio et al. ( | The standard of care and relational active music therapy approach ( | Only standard of care, including physiotherapy and occupational therapy ( | Measured at baseline and at the end of treatment | Neurologic: no significant difference between groups | |
| Street et al. ( | Play acoustic musical instruments and/or iPads with touch screen musical instruments ( | Received no intervention ( | Measured at baseline and at 6-, 9-, 15-, and 18-week follow-up | Arm function: no significant difference between groups | |
| Street et al. ( | Therapeutic instrumental music performance therapy ( | Received no intervention ( | Measured at baseline and at 6-, 9-, 15-, and 18-week follow-up | Arm function: no significant difference between groups | |
| Grau-Sanchez et al. ( | The regular therapy and extra sessions to play a keyboard and an electronic drum set ( | Extra time for exercises for the upper extremity based on the regular therapy ( | Measured at baseline, after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up | Functional movements: significantly improved functional performance score in the MST group compared with CT group (mean ± SD, standard treatment with exercise, 9.8 ± 7.9, vs. exercise, 6.7 ± 7.9; | |
| Jun et al. ( | Received music and movement therapy ( | Received routine care ( | Measured at baseline and at 8-week follow-up | Physical functions: no significant difference between groups | |
| Van Vugt et al. ( | Received its sounds after a random delay sampled from a flat distribution between 100 and 600 ms when the patients play the piano ( | Received the its sounds immediately when the patients play the piano ( | Measured at baseline, after the intervention | Fine motor control: significantly improved fine motor score in the jitter group compared with normal group (mean ± SD, the average improvement of jitter group, 14 ± 53.6 vs. normal, 3.8 ± 17.9; | |
| Fotakopoulos and Kotlia ( | A music group (MG) (daily listening to experiential/traditional music) | A control group (CG) with no experiential/traditional music therapy (standard care only) | Measured at baseline, after the intervention | Cognitive deficits: significantly improved cognitive score in the recovery group compared with no-recovery group (mean ± SD, the recovery group, 26.38 ± 1 vs. no-recovery group, 24.33 ± 2; | |
| Bunketorp-Käll et al. ( | Rhythm-and-music therapy ( | Control group continue with their regular activities and usual care such as outpatient physiotherapy, occupational therapy, or speech therapy ( | Outcome measures were reported at 0 and 6 months postintervention | Hand strength: significant differences in the mean changes in right-sided maximum and left-sided final grip force | |
| Tong et al. ( | Audible music group (MG) includes conventional rehabilitation treatments and extra sessions of audible musical instrument training ( | Mute music group (CG) includes conventional rehabilitation treatments and extra sessions of “mute” musical instrument training ( | Measured at baseline, after the intervention | Motor functions of upper limbs: significant improvements | |
| Schneider et al. ( | Music-supported therapy in addition to conventional therapy ( | Conventional treatment only ( | Measured at baseline, 3-week intervention | BBT, the 9-hole peg test, action research arm test, and arm paresis score: significant improvements in groups TG and MG. Conventional physiotherapy in CG did not produce an improvement, differences between MG, CG, and TG were highly significant, | |
| Fujioka et al. ( | Music-supported therapy used an electronic keyboard and a series of eight electronic drum pads ( | Conventional physical training ( | Measured at baseline, after 5 weeks, after 10 weeks, and 3 months after training completion. | CMSA: Both showed only minor changes over the time course of treatment, hand score was improved at the post 2 time point compared with pre [ | |
| Bunketorp-Käll et al. ( | Control group continue with their regular activities and usual care such as outpatient physiotherapy, occupational therapy, or speech therapy ( | Measured at baseline, after the intervention | Modified Motor Assessment Scale: The MST group did not produce any immediate gains. 6 months 31 post-intervention, the MST group performed better with respect to time; −0.75 s [95% CI, −1.36 to −0.14]; ( |
It-NIHSS, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; FIM, the Functional Independence Measure; HADS, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; MQOL-It, the Italian version of McGill Quality-of-Life Questionnaire; TUG, the Timed Up and Go Test; MTRS, the Music Therapy Rating Scale; mMt, the mini mental test; BI, the Barthel Index; CBF, cerebral blood flow; CMSA, the Chedoke–McMaster Stroke; CAHAI, the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory; RAVLT, the Rey auditory verbal learning test; K-MBI, Korean-modified Barthel index; CES-D, The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; POMS, the Profile of Mood States; WMFT, Wolf motor function test; FMA, Fugl–Meyer assessment; BBT, Box and Block test.
Figure 2Risk of bias summary.
Figure 3Risk of bias graph.
The result of outcome measures in the included studies.
| Muscle strength | Grippit | Improvements were shown at the final of intervention and 6-month follow-up ( |
| Grip-pinch test | Strength of nondominant hand significantly increased ( | |
| Medical Research Council scale and grip strength | No significant difference between groups ( | |
| Range of joint motion | Measuring the ROM of shoulder, elbow joint, and hip joint flexion | Significant increase in shoulder flexion and elbow joint flexion ( |
| Dexterity of hands | 9-Hole peg test | Improved gradually ( |
| 9-Hole peg test and box and blocks test | Both groups improved but no significant differences ( | |
| Test of finger tapping measurements | No significant difference between groups ( | |
| Arm function | Wolf motor function test | Significant differences between the 2 groups ( |
| The action research arm test and arm paresis score | Significant differences between the 2 groups ( | |
| The action research arm test | No significant difference between groups ( | |
| The Modified Motor Assessment Scale (M-MAS) | No significant difference between groups ( | |
| Activities of daily living | The Barthel Index | Significant differences between the two groups ( |
| Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI) or Korean-modified Barthel index (K-MBI) | No significant difference between groups ( | |
| Quality of life | The Stroke-Specific QoL Scale and health-related QoL with the health survey questionnaire SF36 | Significant differences between the 2 groups ( |
| Italian version of McGill Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MQOL-It) | No significant difference between groups ( |