From: Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review
Study | Assessment | Time of measurement | Results |
---|---|---|---|
Liu [22] | FMSA upper extremity subscales, CTT | Pretest, Posttest after the inter-vention, follow-up after one month | Not significant |
 | Trained Tasks, set 1 |  | Not significant |
 | Trained tasks, set 2 |  | significant |
 | Trained tasks, set 3 |  | significant |
 | Untrained tasks |  | significant |
 | Trained tasks, set 3, follow up |  | significant |
Page [25] | FMSA, upper extremity subscales | Two pretests within one week, one posttest after the intervention | % Improvement MI group: 35.98 (10.17) Controls: 21.15 (4.87) No significance level is reported in this study. |
Page [24] | FMSA, upper extremity subscales | Two pretest within one week, one posttest after the intervention | Improvement: MI group: 13.8 Controls: 2.9 No significance level is reported in this study. |
 | ARAT |  | Improvement: MI group: 16.4 Controls: 0.7 No significance level is reported in this level. |
Page [23] | ARAT | Two pretests within one week, one posttest after the intervention | significant |
 | Motor Activity Log Amount of Use (AOU) |  | Improvement: MI group: 1.6 Controls: 0.4 No significance level is reported in this study. |
 | Motor Activity Log Quality of Movement (QOM) |  | MI group: 2.2 Controls: 0.2 No significance level is reported in this study. |