Download the supplement (208 p.) - KCE

168 APPENDICES Physiotherapy KCE reports vol. B
Table 11 Hemiplegia/hemiparesis: treatment modalities applied by Belgian ambulatory physiotherapists and evidence-based literature
Treatment modality
Frequency
(proportion
± accuracy)
Johnstone technique 03 ± 2%
PeRFTtti technique 02 ± 2%
EMG biofeedback 01 ± 1%
Constraint-induced
movement therapy
01 ± 1%
Picard technique 00 ± 0%
Type of
evidence
No evidence
for
nor against
No evidence
for
nor against
No evidence
for
nor against
Evidence for
(weak)
but for a
small subset
of patients
and difficult
to
implement
No evidence
for
nor against
Evidence available in the literature on physiotherapy of hemiplegia/hemiparesis due to stroke
Adopted under the term specific movement therapies .
No specific movement therapy should be assumed to be more efficacious than others.
Comparisons of the Bobath concept with other approaches do not demonstrate superiority of one
approach over the other at improving upper limb impairment, activity or participation.
Adopted under the term specific movement therapies .
No specific movement therapy should be assumed to be more efficacious than others.
Comparisons of the Bobath concept with other approaches do not demonstrate superiority of one
approach over the other at improving upper limb impairment, activity or participation.
There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of EMG biofeedback in the rehabilitation
of movement and function after stroke.
Constraint-induced movement therapy may prove beneficial for a small subset of stroke patients
(weak evidence).
Constraint-induced movement therapy is not recommended as the high intensity constraintinduced
therapy delivered in research trials may be difficult to deliver in routine practice and has only
been proven for the upper limb in certain well-defined situations.
Adopted under the term specific movement therapies .
No specific movement therapy should be assumed to be more efficacious than others.
Comparisons of the Bobath concept with other approaches do not demonstrate superiority of one
approach over the other at improving upper limb impairment, activity or participation.