The effects of unimanual and bimanual massed practice on upper limb function in adults with cervical spinal cord injury: a systematic review

Anna Anderson, Jenny Alexanders, Christine Addington, Sarah Astill

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) have identified improving upper limb function as their most important rehabilitation goal. Unimanual massed practice (UMP) and bimanual massed practice (BMP) may help achieve this.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effects of UMP and BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.

DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and PEDro until April 2016.

STUDY SELECTION: Studies investigating the effects of UMP and/or BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data was extracted using a standardised form. Studies were appraised using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The findings were qualitatively synthesised.

RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials and 2 case studies were included. Six studies included UMP, three included BMP, and two compared these approaches. Overall the studies reported that UMP and BMP improved upper limb function, particularly when combined with electrical stimulation, with no clear differences between UMP and BMP. These findings should be interpreted with caution however, as 6 studies presented a high or unclear risk of bias for all functional upper limb outcome measures included, and the remaining study was a small pilot study with no control group.

CONCLUSION: Although the findings of the included studies support the use of UMP and BMP in adults with cSCI, only 7 studies, all with significant limitations, were included; hence robust conclusions cannot be drawn and further research is warranted. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016037365.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)200-213
Number of pages14
JournalPhysiotherapy
Volume105
Issue number2
Early online date18 Oct 2018
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Spinal Cord Injuries
Upper Extremity
PubMed
Electric Stimulation
Rehabilitation
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Cervical Cord
Control Groups
Research

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2018 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cite this

@article{c9e52e8cb70e48fd9e25cf7a17ad80b9,
title = "The effects of unimanual and bimanual massed practice on upper limb function in adults with cervical spinal cord injury: a systematic review",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) have identified improving upper limb function as their most important rehabilitation goal. Unimanual massed practice (UMP) and bimanual massed practice (BMP) may help achieve this.OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effects of UMP and BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and PEDro until April 2016.STUDY SELECTION: Studies investigating the effects of UMP and/or BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data was extracted using a standardised form. Studies were appraised using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The findings were qualitatively synthesised.RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials and 2 case studies were included. Six studies included UMP, three included BMP, and two compared these approaches. Overall the studies reported that UMP and BMP improved upper limb function, particularly when combined with electrical stimulation, with no clear differences between UMP and BMP. These findings should be interpreted with caution however, as 6 studies presented a high or unclear risk of bias for all functional upper limb outcome measures included, and the remaining study was a small pilot study with no control group.CONCLUSION: Although the findings of the included studies support the use of UMP and BMP in adults with cSCI, only 7 studies, all with significant limitations, were included; hence robust conclusions cannot be drawn and further research is warranted. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016037365.",
author = "Anna Anderson and Jenny Alexanders and Christine Addington and Sarah Astill",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2018 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "30",
language = "English",
volume = "105",
pages = "200--213",
journal = "Physiotherapy",
issn = "0031-9406",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

The effects of unimanual and bimanual massed practice on upper limb function in adults with cervical spinal cord injury : a systematic review. / Anderson, Anna; Alexanders, Jenny; Addington, Christine; Astill, Sarah.

In: Physiotherapy, Vol. 105, No. 2, 30.06.2019, p. 200-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effects of unimanual and bimanual massed practice on upper limb function in adults with cervical spinal cord injury

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Anderson, Anna

AU - Alexanders, Jenny

AU - Addington, Christine

AU - Astill, Sarah

N1 - Copyright © 2018 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/6/30

Y1 - 2019/6/30

N2 - BACKGROUND: Individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) have identified improving upper limb function as their most important rehabilitation goal. Unimanual massed practice (UMP) and bimanual massed practice (BMP) may help achieve this.OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effects of UMP and BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and PEDro until April 2016.STUDY SELECTION: Studies investigating the effects of UMP and/or BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data was extracted using a standardised form. Studies were appraised using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The findings were qualitatively synthesised.RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials and 2 case studies were included. Six studies included UMP, three included BMP, and two compared these approaches. Overall the studies reported that UMP and BMP improved upper limb function, particularly when combined with electrical stimulation, with no clear differences between UMP and BMP. These findings should be interpreted with caution however, as 6 studies presented a high or unclear risk of bias for all functional upper limb outcome measures included, and the remaining study was a small pilot study with no control group.CONCLUSION: Although the findings of the included studies support the use of UMP and BMP in adults with cSCI, only 7 studies, all with significant limitations, were included; hence robust conclusions cannot be drawn and further research is warranted. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016037365.

AB - BACKGROUND: Individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI) have identified improving upper limb function as their most important rehabilitation goal. Unimanual massed practice (UMP) and bimanual massed practice (BMP) may help achieve this.OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effects of UMP and BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and PEDro until April 2016.STUDY SELECTION: Studies investigating the effects of UMP and/or BMP on upper limb function in adults with cSCI.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data was extracted using a standardised form. Studies were appraised using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The findings were qualitatively synthesised.RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials and 2 case studies were included. Six studies included UMP, three included BMP, and two compared these approaches. Overall the studies reported that UMP and BMP improved upper limb function, particularly when combined with electrical stimulation, with no clear differences between UMP and BMP. These findings should be interpreted with caution however, as 6 studies presented a high or unclear risk of bias for all functional upper limb outcome measures included, and the remaining study was a small pilot study with no control group.CONCLUSION: Although the findings of the included studies support the use of UMP and BMP in adults with cSCI, only 7 studies, all with significant limitations, were included; hence robust conclusions cannot be drawn and further research is warranted. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016037365.

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30717883

VL - 105

SP - 200

EP - 213

JO - Physiotherapy

JF - Physiotherapy

SN - 0031-9406

IS - 2

ER -