Skip to main content

Table 2 Treatment effects on upper limb sensorimotor function

From: Effectiveness of a combined transcranial direct current stimulation and virtual reality-based intervention on upper limb function in chronic individuals post-stroke with persistent severe hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial

  Initial assessment Final assessment Significance
Fugl-Meyer assessment scale. Upper extremity subscale T**(p < 0.001, η2p = 0.49)
GxT**(p < 0.001, η2p = 0.44)
Control group 9.87 ± 4.82 10.13 ± 4.60  
Experimental group 9.50 ± 5.11 14.79 ± 7.37  
Wolf motor function test. Performance time (s) T**(p = 0.002, η2p = 0.30)
GxT*(p = 0.036, η2p = 0.15)
Control group 100.3 ± 16.8 98.8 ± 18.6  
Experimental group 110.2 ± 13.9 103.1 ± 17.6  
Wolf motor function test. Functional ability T**(p < 0.001, η2p = 0.37)
GxT*(p = 0.043, η2p = 0.14)
Control group 11.60 ± 7.56 12.27 ± 7.65  
Experimental group 8.86 ± 11.77 11.07 ± 13.04  
Nottingham sensory assessment T(p = 0.050, η2p = 0.51)
GxT(p = 0.598, η2p = 0.08)
Control group 31.93 ± 21.44 33.87 ± 21.44  
Experimental group 35.43 ± 24.70 36.57 ± 23.91  
Nottingham sensory assessment. Tactile subscale T*(p = 0.035, η2p = 0.58)
GxT(p = 0.607, η2p = 0.08)
Control group 25.93 ± 18.71 27.53 ± 18.09  
Experimental group 29.71 ± 20.60 30.71 ± 19.37  
Nottingham sensory assessment. Kinesthetic subscale T(p = 0.468, η2p = 0.10)
GxT(p = 0.955, η2p = 0.05)
Control group 6.00 ± 3.50 6.33 ± 4.01  
Experimental group 5.57 ± 4.47 5.86 ± 4.74  
Nottingham sensory assessment. Stereognosis subscale T*(p = 0.041, η2p = 0.55)
GxT(p = 0.168, η2p = 0.28)
Control group 5.27 ± 6.65 5.33 ± 6.66  
Experimental group 4.00 ± 5.16 5.28 ± 6.62  
  1. Clinical data are given in terms of mean and standard deviation. T time effect, GxT group by time effect. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01