SynthesisBMJ open2025
Interventional effects of modified constraint-induced movement therapy on upper limb function in patients who had a stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home-based modified constraint-induced movement therapy improves distal motor outcomes after botulinum toxin A injection in chronic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Trial
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Efficacy of Shorter Duration Modified Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (mCIMT) Programs.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026Review
- Modified Constraint-induced Movement Therapy with Stepwise Spasticity Management Using RESWT and Kinesthetic Illusion: A Case Report.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 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
objectivesTo systematically evaluate the intervention effect of modified constraint-induced movement therapy (m-CIMT) on upper limb function in patients who had a stroke.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A computer-based search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the intervention effect of m-CIMT on upper limb function in patients who had a stroke, with the search conducted up until 23 May 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included only RCTs in which patients who had a stroke performed m-CIMT or m-CIMT in addition to the control group, and the outcome was upper limb function. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and synthesis used the reporting checklist for systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies were evaluated by two independent investigators under the guidance of Cochrane risk of bias. Effect sizes were pooled, funnel plots were created and subgroup analyses were conducted using Stata V.17.0. If I²>50%, a random-effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots and Egger's test. In the presence of publication bias, a trim-and-fill method was employed for further examination. The quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro.
resultsA total of 16 studies including 612 patients were included. Rehabilitation outcomes were assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (I²=90.34%), Motor Activity Log-Quality of Movement (I²=36.02%), Motor Activity Log-Amount of Use (I²=65.76%), Action Research Arm Test (I²=62.66%) and the Wolf Motor Function Test (I²=36.78%). Low-level evidence suggests that m-CIMT improves upper limb function in patients who had a stroke (all p<0.05). Subgroup analyses indicate that m-CIMT is effective in patients with 'chronic stroke' (p=0.001) and in patients who had a stroke with a course duration of '>2 months' (p=0.005). Intervention periods of '2-4 weeks' (p=0.008) and '5-12 weeks' (p<0.01), as well as intervention durations of '30-60 min' (p=0.006) and '120-180 min' (p=0.045), were all found to improve upper limb function in patients who had a stroke.
conclusionLow-level evidence suggests that m-CIMT can improve upper limb function in patients who had a stroke, although some indicators exhibit high heterogeneity. Therefore, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution. m-CIMT appears to improve upper limb function in patients who had a stroke with a course duration of more than 2 months, as well as in patients with chronic stroke. The intervention period should be at least 2 weeks, and each training session should last at least 30 min. Future studies should adopt more rigorous methodologies and larger sample sizes to further validate the efficacy of m-CIM. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024550028.
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.