Can forced-use therapy be clinically applied after stroke Can forced-use therapy be clinically applied after stroke? an exploratory randomized controlled trial1  Michelle Ploughman, PT, MSc, Dale Corbett, PhD  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  Volume 85, Issue 9, Pages 1417-1423 (September 2004) DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018

Fig 1 CONSORT statement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 2 Number of subjects in the treatment group in each of the compliance categories in hours of constraint per day. Five of the 10 subjects were able to tolerate 3 to 5.5 hours a day. Only 1 subject did not wear the constraint mitten at all. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 3 Scattergram of compliance to mitten constraint versus admission MMSE score (R=.902, P=.0008). Subjects scoring lower on the MMSE wore the mitten constraint fewer hours a day. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 4 Mean change of CMII score ± standard error (SE) for the control group versus the treatment group (∗P=.04). Subjects in the FUT group experienced a 53% improvement in arm function, whereas the control group subjects had a 33% improvement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 5 Mean change in ARAT score ± SE for the control group versus the treatment group. Subjects in the FUT group experienced an 85% improvement in ARAT score, whereas control subjects experienced a 74% improvement. ARAT improvement correlated highly with recovery in the CMII arm (R=.53, P=.009). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 6 Mean change of CMII score ± SE for the treatment group versus control group and right versus left hemiplegia. Although not significant (P=.105), subjects with left hemiplegia in the FUT group experienced a 44% improvement in CMII arm score over subjects with left hemiplegia in the control group. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 7 Mean CMII score change ± SE for the control group versus treatment group and men versus women (∗P<.03; †P<.05). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 8 Mean change in grip strength ± SE (in kilograms) for the control group versus treatment group and women versus men (∗P<.02). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)

Fig 9 Mean ARAT score change ± SE for the control group versus treatment group and women versus men (∗P=.05). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004 85, 1417-1423DOI: (10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.018)