ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2026
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Efficacy of Shorter Duration Modified Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (mCIMT) Programs.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 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 evaluate the efficacy of a specific group of modified constraint-induced movement therapy (mCIMT) protocols, including ≤39 hours of therapist-supervised training combined with ≥10 h/d of restraint, on upper limb motor function in adults with chronic stroke. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 20, 2025, using MeSH terms related to stroke, constraint-induced therapy, and upper limb function. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with chronic stroke who received mCIMT compared with conventional rehabilitation were included. Exclusion criteria included multimodal interventions or insufficient outcome data. Of 6486 records, 5 RCTs (n=239) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted study and participant characteristics, intervention details, and upper limb outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials-2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Data Synthesis: Meta-analysis revealed significant larger improvements for the intervention group compared with controls posttreatment: Wolf Motor Function Test Functional Ability (mean difference [MD]=0.59; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94), Motor Activity Log Quality of Movement (MD=1.08; 95% CI, 0.61-1.55), and Amount of Use (MD=1.01; 95% CI, 0.24-1.79). Wolf Motor Function Test Performance Time improved modestly (standardized mean difference=-0.36; 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.04). At follow-up, only Motor Activity Log scores demonstrated sustained gains. Heterogeneity was moderate to high for some outcomes, and overall evidence strength was rated very low because of small sample sizes and high risk of bias. Conclusions: mCIMT protocols requiring fewer therapist hours but extended restraint time yield meaningful improvements in upper limb function among chronic stroke survivors, with real-world use gains persisting at follow-up. These findings suggest that optimizing, rather than maximizing, therapy intensity may improve feasibility and adherence, supporting broader clinical adoption. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs with long-term follow-up are warranted to refine dosing guidelines and tailor interventions to patient subgroups.
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.