Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33482007›Full record

Trial reportPhysical therapy2021

Implicit and Explicit Motor Learning Interventions Have Similar Effects on Walking Speed in People After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Li-Juan Jie, Melanie Kleynen, Kenneth Meijer, Anna Beurskens, Susy Braun

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Physical therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Home-Based Gait Interventions for Adults with Stroke: A Scoping Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Safe(r) Landing by Older People: A Matter of Complexity.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Li-Juan JieResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4032-1629
Melanie KleynenResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6543-6994
Kenneth MeijerDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School for Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8236-8754
Anna BeurskensDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Susy BraunResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3037-3428
Zuyd University of Applied Sciences · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinicians may use implicit or explicit motor learning approaches to facilitate motor learning of patients with stroke. Implicit motor learning approaches have shown promising results in healthy populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an implicit motor learning walking intervention is more effective compared with an explicit motor learning walking intervention delivered at home regarding walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery.

methodsThis randomized, controlled, single-blind trial was conducted in the home environment. The 79 participants, who were in the chronic phase after stroke (age = 66.4 [SD = 11.0] years; time poststroke = 70.1 [SD = 64.3] months; walking speed = 0.7 [SD = 0.3] m/s; Berg Balance Scale score = 44.5 [SD = 9.5]), were randomly assigned to an implicit (n = 38) or explicit (n = 41) group. Analogy learning was used as the implicit motor learning walking intervention, whereas the explicit motor learning walking intervention consisted of detailed verbal instructions. Both groups received 9 training sessions (30 minutes each), for a period of 3 weeks, targeted at improving quality of walking. The primary outcome was walking speed measured by the 10-Meter Walk Test at a comfortable walking pace. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately after intervention, and 1 month postintervention.

resultsNo statistically or clinically relevant differences between groups were obtained postintervention (between-group difference was estimated at 0.02 m/s [95% CI = -0.04 to 0.08] and at follow-up (between-group difference estimated at -0.02 m/s [95% CI = -0.09 to 0.05]).

conclusionImplicit motor learning was not superior to explicit motor learning to improve walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. IMPACT: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of implicit compared with explicit motor learning on a functional task in people after stroke. Results indicate that physical therapists can use (tailored) implicit and explicit motor learning strategies to improve walking speed in people after stroke who are in the chronic phase of recovery.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecovery of FunctionSingle-Blind MethodStroke RehabilitationWalking SpeedWalk TestAnalogy LearningGait: Gait TrainingImplicit LearningMotor Control and Motor LearningRehabilitationStroke

Identifiers

PMID33482007
PMCPMC8101354
OpenAlexW3123296624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.