BackgroundStroke can lead to significant impairment of upper limb function which affects performance of activities of daily living (ADL). Functional electrical stimulation (FES) involves electrical stimulation of motor neurons such that muscle groups contract and create or augment a moment about a joint. Whilst lower limb FES was established in post-stroke rehabilitation, there is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of upper limb FES. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of post-stroke upper limb FES on ADL and motor outcomes.MethodsSystematic review of randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation checking of included studies and systematic reviews. Eligibility criteria: participants > 18 years with haemorrhagic/ischaemic stroke, intervention group received upper limb FES plus standard care, control group received standard care. Outcomes were ADL (primary), functional motor ability (secondary) and other motor outcomes (tertiary). Quality assessment using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.ResultsTwenty studies were included. No significant benefit of FES was found for objective ADL measures reported in six studies (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.64; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [−0.02, 1.30]; total participants in FES group (n) = 67); combination of all ADL measures was not possible. Analysis of three studies where FES was initiated on average within 2 months post-stroke showed a significant benefit of FES on ADL (SMD 1.24; CI [0.46, 2.03]; n = 32). In three studies where FES was initiated more than 1 year after stroke, no significant ADL improvements were seen (SMD −0.10; CI [−0.59, 0.38], n = 35).Quality assessment using GRADE found very low quality evidence in all analyses due to heterogeneity, low participant numbers and lack of blinding.ConclusionsFES is a promising therapy which could play a part in future stroke rehabilitation. This review found a statistically significant benefit from FES applied within 2 months of stroke on the primary outcome of ADL. However, due to the very low (GRADE) quality evidence of these analyses, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the effectiveness of FES or its optimum therapeutic window. Hence, there is a need for high quality large-scale randomised controlled trials of upper limb FES after stroke.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42015025162, Date:11/08/2015 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0435-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This review evaluates the effectiveness of robotic and virtual reality technologies used for neurological rehabilitation in stroke survivors. It examines each rehabilitation technology in turn before considering combinations of these technologies and the complexities of rehabilitation outcome assessment. There is high-quality evidence that upper-limb robotic rehabilitation technologies improve movement, strength and activities of daily living, whilst the evidence for robotic lower-limb rehabilitation is currently not as convincing. Virtual reality technologies also improve activities of daily living. Whilst the benefit of these technologies over dose-controlled conventional rehabilitation is likely to be small, there is a role for both technologies as part of a broader rehabilitation programme, where they may help to increase the intensity and amount of therapy delivered. Combining robotic and virtual reality technologies in a rehabilitation programme may further improve rehabilitation outcomes and we would advocate randomised controlled trials of these technologies in combination.

No abstract

No abstract