Motor training programs of arm and hand in patients with MS according to different levels of the ICF: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundThe upper extremity plays an important role in daily functioning of patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and strongly influences their quality of life. However, an explicit overview of arm-hand training programs is lacking. The present review aims to investigate the training components and the outcome of motor training programs for arm and hand in MS.MethodsA computerized systematic literature search in 5 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and Cochrane) was performed using the following Mesh terms: Multiple Sclerosis, Rehabilitation, Physical Education and Training, Exercise, Patient-Centered Care, Upper Extremity, Activities of Daily Living, Motor Skills, Motor Activity, Intervention Studies and Clinical Trial. The methodological quality of the selected articles was scored with the Van Tulder Checklist. A descriptive analyses was performed using the PICO principle, including scoring of training components with the calculation of Hedges’g effect sizes.ResultsEleven studies were eligible (mean Van Tulder-score = 10.82(SD2.96)). Most studies reported a specific improvement in arm hand performance at the ICF level that was trained at. The mean number of training components was 5.5(SD2.8) and a significant correlation (r = 0.67; p < 0.05) between the number of training components and effect sizes was found. The components ‘client-centered’ and ‘functional movement’ were most frequently used, whereas ‘distribution based practice’, ‘feedback’ and ‘random practice’ were never used. The component ‘exercise progression’ was only used in studies with single ICF body function training, with the exception of 1 study with activity level training. Studies including the component ‘client-centred’ demonstrated moderate to high effect sizes.ConclusionMotor training programs (both at the ICF body function and activity level) have shown to improve arm and hand performance in MS in which the value of the training specificity was emphasized. To optimize upper extremity training in MS the component ‘client-centred’ and ‘exercise progression’ may be important. Furthermore, given the importance attributed to the components ‘distribution based practice’, ‘feedback’ and ‘random practice’ in previous research in stroke patients, the use of these components in arm hand training should be explored in future research.

Markerless motion capture systems as training device in neurological rehabilitation: a systematic review of their use, application, target population and efficacy

“…This might be related to task-specific effects of motor learning [14, 51]. Also, the improvement might be due to the gaming-aspect as people tend to be more motivated compared to conventional therapy.…”

Upper Limb Rehabilitation in People With Multiple Sclerosis

“…The effects of motor training programs targeting the upper limbs were reviewed by Spooren et al in 2012. 21 Meanwhile, there has been an uprising of new upper limb rehabilitation strategies such as task-oriented training, sensory training, robotics, and technology-supported rehabilitation devices. The current changes in the research field inquire a new systematic literature review including all types of rehabilitation strategies aiming to improve the upper limb function in MS.…”

Neurorehabilitation Topics in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: From Outcome Measurements to Rehabilitation Interventions

“…Loss of manual dexterity is a very common deficit in MS, and plays an important role in the performance of many ADL. Recently, Spooren and colleagues 20 provided an overview of existing treatment programs to improve upper arm motor functioning. The authors found 11 eligible studies dealing with upper extremity training in MS patients.…”

“…[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Several Cochrane meta-analyses have shown low-to-moderate evidence for rehabilitation intervention given multiple outcomes analysis. [15][16][17][18][19][20] Here we present an overview of the main sensorimotor symptoms in MS and discuss standardized outcome assessments and existing evidence-based motor rehabilitation strategies that improve functional outcome and QoL.…”