To systematically review the evidence and examine the effectiveness of group-based UL intervention versus individual therapy, in decreasing impairment and improving UL function post-stroke.
Data Sources
A comprehensive search of four key databases (CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, and MEDLINE) identified relevant studies published from inception through to November 2024.
Review methods
Two reviewers independently performed screening for inclusion according to selection criteria. Eligible studies provided dose-matched group and individual UL rehabilitation programs. Outcomes that measured UL impairment (Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Test) or function (Action Research Arm Test) were extracted for meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale.
Results
Of 3291 publications, eight studies were included (n = 348) (seven randomised controlled trials and one controlled trial) of poor to good quality. A random effects meta-analysis model was conducted. Statistical significance was determined using analysis of covariance. No significant effects were shown in the meta-analyses on the effect of group versus individual therapy on UL impairment (mean difference 0.87, 95% CI: −0.87 to 2.62, p = .327) or function (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI: −0.23 to 3.29, p = .089). Results were limited by small sample sizes and substantial heterogeneity, with wide variation in intervention type, dosage and setting.
Conclusion
Meta-analyses suggest group-based UL intervention may be as effective as intervention delivered one-to-one, post-stroke. Additional studies of large sample size and rigorous methodology are necessary to substantiate these findings. Future research should investigate which types of UL intervention are most effective when provided in group-based settings across the different stages of stroke recovery.
NakayamaHStig JørgensenHOtto RaaschouH,et al.Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994; 75: 394–398.
2.
LanghornePCouparFPollockA. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol2009; 8: 741–754.
3.
G. BroeksJLankhorstGJRumpingK,et al.The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil1999; 21: 357–364.
4.
DuncanPWGoldsteinLBMatcharD, et al.Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke1992; 23: 1084–1089.
5.
MorrisJHvan WijckFJoiceS,et al.Predicting health related quality of life 6 months after stroke: the role of anxiety and upper limb dysfunction. Disabil Rehabil2013; 35: 291–299.
6.
FranceschiniMLa PortaFAgostiM,et al.Is health-related-quality of life of stroke patients influenced by neurological impairments at one year after stroke?Eur J Phys Rehabil Med2010; 43: 389–399.
7.
LieshoutECCvan de PortIGDijkhuizenRM,et al.Does upper limb strength play a prominent role in health-related quality of life in stroke patients discharged from inpatient rehabilitation?Top Stroke Rehabil2020; 27: 525–533.
VeerbeekJMvan WegenEvan PeppenR, et al.What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE2014; 9: e87987.
10.
WattchowKAMcDonnellMNHillierSL. Rehabilitation interventions for upper limb function in the first four weeks following stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2018; 99: 367–382.
11.
FrenchBThomasLHCoupeJ, et al.Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016; 11: CD006073.
12.
PollockAFarmerSEBradyMC, et al.Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014; 11: CD010820.
13.
CorbettaDSirtoriVCastelliniG, et al.Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in people with stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015; 10: CD004433.
14.
BarclayREStevensonTJPoluhaW, et al.Mental practice for treating upper extremity deficits in individuals with hemiparesis after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020; 5: CD005950.
15.
ThiemeHMorkischNMehrholzJ, et al.Mirror therapy for improving motor function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 7: CD008449.
16.
AminovARogersJMMiddletonS, et al.What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes. J Neuroeng Rehabil2018; 15: 1–24.
17.
LaverKELangeBGeorgeS, et al.Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2017; 11: CD008349.
18.
MehrholzJPohlMPlatzT, et al.Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 9: CD006876.
19.
SchneiderEJLanninNAAL,et al.Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother2016; 62: 182–187.
20.
ClarkBWhitallJKwakkelG, et al.The effect of time spent in rehabilitation on activity limitation and impairment after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2021; 10: CD012612.
21.
de SousaDGHarveyLADorschS,et al.Interventions involving repetitive practice improve strength after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother2018; 64: 210–221.
LohseKRLangCEBoydLA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke2014; 45: 2053–2058.
24.
EnglishCHillierSKaurG,et al.People with stroke spend more time in active task practice, but similar time in walking practice, when physiotherapy rehabilitation is provided in circuit classes compared to individual therapy sessions: an observational study. J Physiother2014; 60: 50–54.
25.
DorschSWeeksKKingL,et al.In inpatient rehabilitation, large amounts of practice can occur safely without direct therapist supervision: an observational study. J Physiother2019; 65: 23–27.
26.
EnglishCBernhardtJCrottyM, et al.Circuit class therapy or seven-day week therapy for increasing rehabilitation intensity of therapy after stroke (CIRCIT): a randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke2015; 10: 594–602.
27.
EnglishCHillierSLLynchEA. Circuit class therapy for improving mobility after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2017; 6: CD007513.
28.
RoseDParisTCrewsE, et al.Feasibility and effectiveness of circuit training in acute stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2011; 25: 140–148.
29.
van de PortIGLWeversLEGLindemanE,et al.Effects of circuit training as alternative to usual physiotherapy after stroke: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J2012; 344: e2672-e.
30.
BlennerhassettJDiteW. Additional task-related practice improves mobility and upper limb function early after stroke: a randomised controlled trial. Aust J Phys2004; 50: 219–224.
31.
BennettLLukerJEnglishC,et al.Stroke survivors’ perspectives on two novel models of inpatient rehabilitation: seven-day a week individual therapy or five-day a week circuit class therapy. Disabil Rehabil2016; 38: 1397–1406.
32.
EnglishCKHillierSLStillerKR,et al.Circuit class therapy versus individual physiotherapy sessions during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2007; 88: 955–963.
33.
World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/42407 (2001, accessed 1 July 2023).
34.
De MortonNA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Phys2009; 55: 129–133.
MathiowetzVVollandGKashmanN,et al.Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther1985; 39: 386–391.
37.
LyleRC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res1981; 4: 483–492.
38.
PlatzTPinkowskiCvan WijckF, et al.Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer test, action research arm test and box and block test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil2005; 19: 404–411.
39.
Bustamante VallesKMontesSMadrigalMDJ, et al.Technology-assisted stroke rehabilitation in Mexico: a pilot randomized trial comparing traditional therapy to circuit training in a robot/technology-assisted therapy gym. J Neuroeng Rehabil2016; 13: 1–15.
40.
ThorlundKWalterSDJohnstonBC, et al.Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods2011; 2: 188–203.
41.
EbrahimSJohnstonBCAklEA, et al.Addressing continuous data measured with different instruments for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol2014; 67: 560–570.
42.
PapadimitropoulouKRileyRDDekkersOM, et al.MA-Cont: pre/post effect size: an interactive tool for the meta-analysis of continuous outcomes using R shiny. Res Synth Methods2022; 13: 649–660.
43.
PourhoseingholiMABaghestaniARVahediM. How to control confounding effects by statistical analysis. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench2012; 5: 79.
44.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJ,et al.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J2003; 327: 557–560.
45.
HordacreBAustinDBrownKE, et al.Evidence for a window of enhanced plasticity in the human motor cortex following ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2021; 35: 307–320.
46.
BernhardtJHaywardKSKwakkelG, et al.Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke2017; 12: 444–450.
47.
BaigMOAzmatF. Effects of circuit class training versus individual, task specific training on upper extremity function in chronic stroke patients. J Health Rehabil Res2024; 4: 525–530.
48.
DoussoulinARivasCRivasR,et al.Effects of modified constraint-induced movement therapy in the recovery of upper extremity function affected by a stroke: a single-blind randomized parallel trial-comparing group versus individual intervention. Int J Rehabil Res2018; 41: 35–40.
49.
WuennemannMJMackenzieSWLaneHP, et al.Dose and staffing comparison study of upper limb device-assisted therapy. NeuroRehabilitation2020; 46: 287–297.
50.
HesseSHeß ACWCKabbertN,et al.Effect on arm function and cost of robot-assisted group therapy in subacute patients with stroke and a moderately to severely affected arm: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2014; 28: 637–647.
51.
RabadiMGalganoMLynchD, et al.A pilot study of activity-based therapy in the arm motor recovery post stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2008; 22: 1071–1082.
52.
RennerCIOutermansJLudwigR, et al.Group therapy task training versus individual task training during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2016; 30: 637–648.
53.
ThiemeHBaynMWurgM, et al.Mirror therapy for patients with severe arm paresis after stroke – a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil2013; 27: 314–324.
54.
LauferYElboim-GabyzonM. Does sensory transcutaneous electrical stimulation enhance motor recovery following a stroke? A systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2011; 25: 799–809.
55.
Fugl-MeyerAJääsköLLeymanI, et al.The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med2011; 7: 13–31.
56.
WoytowiczEJRietschelJCGoodmanRN, et al.Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying a cluster analysis to the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2017; 98: 456–462.
57.
van der LeeJHde GrootVBeckermanH, et al.The intra- and interrater reliability of the action research arm test: a practical test of upper extremity function in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 14–19.
58.
SanfordJMorelandJSwansonLR, et al.Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther1993; 73: 447–454.
59.
PageSJFulkGDBoyneP. Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther2012; 92: 791–798.
60.
El HusseiniNKatzanILRostNS, et al.Cognitive impairment after ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke2023; 54: e272–ee91.
61.
SextonEMcLoughlinAWilliamsDJ, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of cognitive impairment no dementia in the first year post-stroke. Eur Stroke J2019; 4: 160–171.
62.
Adey-WakelingZArimaHCrottyM, et al.Incidence and associations of hemiplegic shoulder pain poststroke: prospective population-based study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2015; 96: 241–247.e1.
63.
EspositoEShekhtmanGChenP. Prevalence of spatial neglect post-stroke: a systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med2021; 64: 101459.
64.
HepworthLRRoweFJWalkerMF, et al.Post-stroke visual impairment: a systematic literature review of types and recovery of visual conditions. Ophthalmol Res: Int J2015; 5: 1–43.
65.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; 372: 71.
66.
SchmuckerCMBlumleASchellLK, et al.Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research. PLoS ONE2017; 12: e0176210.
67.
HancockSLThayabaranathanTCameronJ, et al.Comparisons between group- and individual-based interventions to support recovery from stroke and ischaemic heart disease in the community: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil2024; 46: 5432–5441.
68.
SerradaIFryerCHordacreB,et al.Can body awareness training improve recovery following stroke: a study to assess feasibility and preliminary efficacy. Clin Rehabil2022; 36: 650–659.
69.
Bonini-RochaACde AndradeALSMoraesAM, et al.Effectiveness of circuit-based exercises on gait speed, balance, and functional mobility in people affected by stroke: a meta-analysis. Phys Med Rehabil2018; 10: 398–409.
70.
WeversLvan de PortIVermueM, et al.Effects of task-oriented circuit class training on walking competency after stroke. Stroke2009; 40: 2450–2459.
71.
PangMYHarrisJEEngJJ. A community-based upper-extremity group exercise program improves motor function and performance of functional activities in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2006; 87: 1–9.
72.
von HippelPT. The heterogeneity statistic I(2) can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol2015; 15: 35.
73.
PageMJHigginsJPTSterneJAC. Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. Cochrane, https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (2023, accessed 1 February 2024).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
