ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
Additive effects of mirror therapy and bilateral TENS on upper limb recovery in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the addition of mirror therapy to bilateral transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (Bi-TENS), a supraspinally acting intervention, yields additional benefits in upper extremity motor recovery after chronic stroke. Methods: Thirty individuals with chronic hemiparesis were randomized to receive either Bi-TENS combined with mirror therapy (n = 15) or Bi-TENS alone (n = 15). In both groups, Bi-TENS was applied bilaterally to the finger extensor muscles for 5 sessions per week over 4 weeks. Upper extremity motor function was assessed using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) as the primary outcome measure at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. All assessments were conducted by a blinded assessor. Results: Baseline FMA-UE scores were comparable between groups (mirror therapy + Bi-TENS: 44.2 ± 11.1; Bi-TENS alone: 47.1 ± 8.1; p = 0.415). Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses demonstrated significant improvements in FMA-UE scores over time (intention-to-treat: p = 0.001; per-protocol: p < 0.001). However, no significant group-by-time interaction was detected in intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses (p = 0.799 and p = 0.374, respectively). Conclusion: Both Bi-TENS alone and Bi-TENS combined with mirror therapy yielded comparable improvements in upper extremity motor function in individuals with chronic stroke, suggesting that the addition of mirror therapy did not produce an additive effect under the conditions of the present study. Clinical relevance: The findings indicate that Bi-TENS is an effective adjunctive intervention for upper extremity motor recovery in chronic stroke. Given the comparable outcomes observed with and without mirror therapy, clinicians may consider prioritizing Bi-TENS when treatment duration or therapeutic resources are constrained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41941102What 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.