Cargando…
To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke
BACKGROUND: Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin’s surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the u...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7708198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292869 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40945-020-00091-x |
_version_ | 1783617515289575424 |
---|---|
author | Stockley, Rachel C. Hanna, Kerry Connell, Louise |
author_facet | Stockley, Rachel C. Hanna, Kerry Connell, Louise |
author_sort | Stockley, Rachel C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin’s surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke. MAIN TEXT: Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The findings of included studies were synthesized to describe: the safety of RSS, in whom and when after stroke it has been used, the doses used and its effectiveness. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. The majority of studies used RSS in participants with mild or moderate impairments and in the chronic stage after stroke. Four studies used RSS in a single treatment session, reporting significant improvements in strength and hand function. Findings from longitudinal studies showed few significant differences between control and experimental groups. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of RSS for the upper-limb after stroke in clinical practice. However, this review highlights several clear research priorities including establishing the mechanism and in whom RSS may work, its safety and optimal treatment parameters to improve function of the upper-limb after stroke. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40945-020-00091-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7708198 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77081982020-12-02 To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke Stockley, Rachel C. Hanna, Kerry Connell, Louise Arch Physiother Review BACKGROUND: Repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) is a therapeutic approach which involves repeated electrical stimulation of the skin’s surface to improve function. This rapid systematic review aimed to describe the current evidence for repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) in rehabilitation of the upper-limb for people who have had a stroke. MAIN TEXT: Methods: Relevant studies were identified in a systematic search of electronic databases and hand-searching in February 2020. The findings of included studies were synthesized to describe: the safety of RSS, in whom and when after stroke it has been used, the doses used and its effectiveness. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. No serious adverse events were reported. The majority of studies used RSS in participants with mild or moderate impairments and in the chronic stage after stroke. Four studies used RSS in a single treatment session, reporting significant improvements in strength and hand function. Findings from longitudinal studies showed few significant differences between control and experimental groups. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of RSS for the upper-limb after stroke in clinical practice. However, this review highlights several clear research priorities including establishing the mechanism and in whom RSS may work, its safety and optimal treatment parameters to improve function of the upper-limb after stroke. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40945-020-00091-x. BioMed Central 2020-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7708198/ /pubmed/33292869 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40945-020-00091-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Stockley, Rachel C. Hanna, Kerry Connell, Louise To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke |
title | To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke |
title_full | To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke |
title_fullStr | To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke |
title_full_unstemmed | To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke |
title_short | To stimulate or not to stimulate? A rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke |
title_sort | to stimulate or not to stimulate? a rapid systematic review of repetitive sensory stimulation for the upper-limb following stroke |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7708198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292869 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40945-020-00091-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stockleyrachelc tostimulateornottostimulatearapidsystematicreviewofrepetitivesensorystimulationfortheupperlimbfollowingstroke AT hannakerry tostimulateornottostimulatearapidsystematicreviewofrepetitivesensorystimulationfortheupperlimbfollowingstroke AT connelllouise tostimulateornottostimulatearapidsystematicreviewofrepetitivesensorystimulationfortheupperlimbfollowingstroke |