Trial reportRevista de neurologia2024
[Paresis of an upper extremity. Action observation and motor imagery in recovery of patients with chronic stroke].
Trial report in Revista de neurologia, 2024. 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.
- EEG Biomarkers During Upper-Limb Action Observation Therapy for Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- The effects of mirror visual feedback involved network priming on embodiment perception in healthy subjects: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAction observation (AO) and motor imagery (MI) are considered functionally equivalent forms of motor representation related to movement execution (ME). Because of their characteristics, AO and MI have been proposed as techniques to facilitate the recovery of post-stroke hemiparesis in the upper extremities. PATIENTS AND
methodsAn experimental, longitudinal, prospective, single-blinded design was undertaken. Eleven patients participated, and were randomly assigned to each study group. Both groups received 10 to 12 sessions of physical therapy. Five patients were assigned to the control treatment group, and six patients to the experimental treatment group (AO + MI). All were assessed before and after treatment for function, strength (newtons) and mobility (percentage) in the affected limb, as well as alpha desynchronisation (8-13 Hz) in the supplementary motor area, the premotor cortex and primary motor cortex while performing AO + MI tasks and action observation plus motor execution (AO + ME).
resultsThe experimental group presented improvement in function and strength. A negative correlation was found between desynchronisation in the supplementary motor area and function, as well as a post-treatment increase in desynchronisation in the premotor cortex of the injured hemisphere in the experimental group only.
conclusionsAn AO + MI-based intervention positively impacts recovery of the paretic upper extremity by stimulating the supplementary motor area, a cortex involved in movement preparation and learning. AO + MI therapy can be used as adjunctive treatment in patients with upper extremity paresis following chronic stroke.
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.