ArticleBMC neurology2025
Clinical feasibility and cortical effects of synchronous mirror therapy on speech-language and upper limb motor function after stroke.
Article in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPost-stroke aphasia concurrent with upper limb (UL) motor dysfunction is very common and difficult to rehabilitate. Although mirror therapy (MT) has demonstrated efficacy in treating aphasia and UL motor dysfunction separately, it has not been utilized to address both conditions simultaneously. Our study introduces a novel Synchronous Mirror Therapy (SMT) system that integrates speech-language therapy with UL motor training to evaluate its clinical feasibility, preliminary efficacy, and potential cortical mechanisms.
methodFifteen patients and five therapists participated in this study. The patients had aphasia and UL motor dysfunction and underwent the SMT intervention ten times. They were evaluated through functional assessment scales (Aphasia Quotient of Western Aphasia Battery (WAB-AQ); Assessment of Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb scale (FMA-UL); Action Research Arm Test (ARAT)) and three questionnaires, and functional near-infrared (fNIRS) test. We analyzed the questionnaire results, functional changes before and after SMT, and differences between the SMT intervention and rest periods.
resultsNine patients underwent all SMT treatment sessions. Patients and therapists gave high ratings for SMT. Compared with before SMT interventions, significant improvements were observed in language function (WAB-AQ: p = 0.008) and UL motor function (FMA-UL: p = 0.007; ARAT: p = 0.016) after all SMT interventions, along with significant changes in three fNIRS channels (channel 9, p < 0.001; channel 20, p = 0.005; channel 30, p = 0.046) during the SMT intervention.
conclusionThe SMT intervention demonstrated feasibility and received positive feedback from both patients and therapists. The results indicate potential benefits of SMT in improving language and UL motor function for post-stroke patients. fNIRS findings suggest possible enhanced cortical activation during SMT, which may be associated with neural recovery processes. While encouraging, this still necessitates validation through larger sample sizes and rigorous randomized controlled designs.
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.