RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Wearable Focal Muscle Vibration Improves Upper Limb Function in People with Sub-acute Stroke
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.11.11.24317091
DO 10.1101/2024.11.11.24317091
A1 Niazi, Imran Khan
A1 Amjad, Imran
A1 Farooq, Irum
A1 Shafi, Hina
A1 Rashid, Usman
A1 Kumari, Nitika
A1 Shaikh, Nusratnaaz
A1 Jochumsen, Mads
A1 Holt, Kelly
A1 Haavik, Heidi
A1 Farmer, Simon F.
A1 Pujari, Amit N.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/11/2024.11.11.24317091.abstract
AB The objective of the study was to compare the effects of two focal muscle vibration (FMV) stimulation frequencies (60 Hz and 120 Hz), combined with conventional physical therapy (PT), on upper limb impairment and function in people with sub-acute stroke when FMV is delivered through a wearable FMV device.The study was a parallel group, randomized controlled trial conducted at the Rehabilitation Centre of Railway General Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. A total of 98 individuals with sub-acute stroke were randomly allocated to control group (eight weeks of conventional physical therapy, (PT)) or experimental groups (eight weeks of conventional physical therapy combined with focal muscle vibration (FMV) at 60 Hz (PT + FMV60 Hz) or 120 Hz (PT + FMV120 Hz)). Outcome measures included Fugl Meyer Scale for upper extremity (FMUE), Motor Assessment Scale (MAS), and Modified Ashworth Scale (MASh). They were collected at baseline and after eight weeks of treatment. Data were analysed using linear regression model. The study was registered on the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov clinical trial registry (Identifier NCT04289766).At post-intervention time-point, FMUE scores varied across groups (F (2, 81) = 7.2, p = 0.001), MAS scores did not vary across groups (F (2, 81) = 0.2, p = 0.8) and MASh rank changes varied across groups (F (2, 81) = 3.3, p = 0.04). There were no differences between the PT + FMV60 Hz and the PT + FMV120 Hz groups.This study provides the evidence that wearable Focal Muscle Vibration (at 60 and 120 Hz) improves the motor outcome of sub-acute stroke patients. Thus, it can be used along with conventional physiotherapy as a valid intervention to promote upper limb function and reduce spasticity in sub-acute post-stroke patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04289766Funding StatementPartial funding support for this study was though the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng)-Leverhulme Trust Fellowship awarded to ANP.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at the Rehabilitation Centre of Railway General Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from February 26, 2020, to April 20, 2021. The Ethical Review Committee of Riphah International University, Pakistan, approved the study (REC/00654). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants followed the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and adhered to the declaration of Helsinki. The study was registered on the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov clinical trial registry (NCT04289766). An information sheet was given to participants, and all participants signed a written consent form in presence of the researcher before the experiment.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData will be available upon request.