Comparison of Bobath based and movement science based treatment for stroke: a randomised controlled trial

P M van Vliet, N B Lincoln, A Foxall, P M van Vliet, N B Lincoln, A Foxall

Abstract

Objectives: Bobath based (BB) and movement science based (MSB) physiotherapy interventions are widely used for patients after stroke. There is little evidence to suggest which is most effective. This single-blind randomised controlled trial evaluated the effect of these treatments on movement abilities and functional independence.

Methods: A total of 120 patients admitted to a stroke rehabilitation ward were randomised into two treatment groups to receive either BB or MSB treatment. Primary outcome measures were the Rivermead Motor Assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. Secondary measures assessed functional independence, walking speed, arm function, muscle tone, and sensation. Measures were performed by a blinded assessor at baseline, and then at 1, 3, and 6 months after baseline. Analysis of serial measurements was performed to compare outcomes between the groups by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) and inserting AUC values into Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results: Comparison between groups showed no significant difference for any outcome measures. Significance values for the Rivermead Motor Assessment ranged from p = 0.23 to p = 0.97 and for the Motor Assessment Scale from p = 0.29 to p = 0.87.

Conclusions: There were no significant differences in movement abilities or functional independence between patients receiving a BB or an MSB intervention. Therefore the study did not show that one approach was more effective than the other in the treatment of stroke patients.

References

    1. Stroke. 1999 Nov;30(11):2369-75
    1. Lancet. 1999 Jul 17;354(9174):191-6
    1. Clin Rehabil. 2000 Aug;14(4):361-9
    1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Jul;82(7):961-8
    1. Clin Rehabil. 2001 Aug;15(4):398-414
    1. J Rehabil Med. 2003 Jan;35(1):2-7
    1. Physiotherapy. 1979 Feb;65(2):48-51
    1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980 Dec;61(12):551-61
    1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983 Aug;64(8):364-7
    1. Phys Ther. 1985 Feb;65(2):175-80
    1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1985 Jan;48(1):7-13
    1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986 Feb;67(2):88-91
    1. Phys Ther. 1986 Aug;66(8):1233-8
    1. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8(2):74-8
    1. Phys Ther. 1987 Feb;67(2):206-7
    1. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61-3
    1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1989 Nov;52(11):1267-72
    1. BMJ. 1990 Jan 27;300(6719):230-5
    1. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1990;22(1):1-8
    1. Stroke. 1990 Jul;21(7):1081-5
    1. Phys Ther. 1991 Feb;71(2):157-64
    1. Lancet. 1991 Jun 22;337(8756):1521-6
    1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;55(7):530-5
    1. Stroke. 1997 Apr;28(4):722-8
    1. Physiother Res Int. 1996;1(2):75-88
    1. Stroke. 1997 Aug;28(8):1550-6
    1. Stroke. 1998 Apr;29(4):785-92
    1. Stroke. 1998 Jun;29(6):1122-8
    1. Stroke. 1999 Mar;30(3):573-9

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren