Trial reportMedicine2022
Effect of compressive therapy on sensorimotor function of the more affected upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manual Dexterity Impairment in Patients with Complete Paraplegia: An Exploratory Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Effects of compression therapy on the upper limb of patients with stroke: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommon upper extremity (UE) physical impairments after stroke include paresis, abnormal muscle tone, and somatosensory affection. This study evaluated the effect of passive somatosensory stimulation using compressive therapy on sensorimotor function of the more affected UE in chronic stroke patients.
methodsForty chronic stroke patients were enrolled in this study. They were randomized into 2 groups: Gr1 and Gr2. Three patients dropped out leaving us with a total of 37 patients completing the study. Gr1 received UE motor program for the more affected UE along with sham electrical stimulation while Gr2 had the same UE motor program along with passive somatosensory stimulation. The session duration in both groups was 85 min. Gr1 and Gr2 received a total of 36 sessions for 6 successive weeks. UE function in Gr1 and Gr2 was examined, before and after treatment using Box and Block test (BBT) and Perdue Pegboard test (PPBT) as measures of motor of both the more affected and less affected UE while the Nottingham sensory assessment (NSA) scale was used as a measure of sensory function of the more affected UE.
resultsThere were significant improvements in motor and sensory function of the more affected UE compared to the less affected UE in both groups, measured by the BBT, PPBT, and NSA scales post-treatment (P < .05). However, the comparison between both groups regarding improvement revealed no significant change (P > .05).
conclusionUpper extremity motor and passive somatosensory stimulation techniques are effective in improving sensorimotor function of the more affected UE, but none of them had the advantage over the other, in terms of improving motor and sensory function in chronic stroke patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.