StrokeCEMRA-PNFNCT06539247
MRP Verses PNF on Pain, Foot Drop, Gait and Functional Mobility in Hemiplegic Patients.
A study testing Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS) in people with Stroke and Pain, run by University of Lahore at 1 site in Pakistan.
Trial summary
This single blinded randomized control study aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of two rehabilitation approaches for improving pain, foot drop, gait, and functional mobility in patients with hemiplegia. The study recruited 68 patients diagnosed with hemiplegia who met specific inclusion criteria. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 45 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke, Pain, Gait, Drop Foot
- What is being tested?
- Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS)
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 68 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePakistan
- Study dates
- 28 Jan 2024to 17 Dec 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 45 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients having age between 45 to 65 years (Kagawa et al., 2013)
- Hemiplegic, impaired functional mobility and dependent (Kanase, 2020)
- Functional deficits in lower limb, with both the Sexes and any side (left or right) (Kanase, 2020)
- Patients having hemiplegia within 6 months might be post-stroke, able to follow instructions (Kanase, 2020)
- Diagnosed with hemiplegia having a stable neurological condition (e.g., stroke) (Anandan et al., 2020)
- Minimum score of 12 on the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) to ensure sufficient baseline gait function for meaningful comparison (Singha, 2017).
Show all 9Show fewer
- Grade 3 foot drop (Tibialis Anterior) on the Motor Assessment Scale in the affected leg to have room for improvement in both interventions (Singha, 2017).
- Participants having moderate to severe pain of ≤ 4 (moderate) and ≥ 7 (severe) on numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) at rest , were included to minimize confounding effects of pain on gait and mobility (Beebe et al., 2021).
- Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score ≥ 24 (Page et al., 2007).
Who cannot join
- Subjects having any medical condition that affects his/her performance (Kanase, 2020)
- Completely recovered case of Hemiplegia in terms of walking abilities \& upper limb activities (Kanase, 2020)
- Subjects with Transient Ischemic Attack (Kanase, 2020)
- Other neurological conditions such as severe cognitive impairments
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Comparative Effects of Motor Relearning Approach Versus Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique (PNF) on Pain, Foot Drop, Gait and Functional Mobility in Hemiplegic Patients
This single blinded randomized control study aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of two rehabilitation approaches for improving pain, foot drop, gait, and functional mobility in patients with hemiplegia. The study recruited 68 patients diagnosed with hemiplegia who met specific inclusion criteria. Both groups received a treatment program lasting eight weeks, with assessments at baseline, week four, and week eight. The study measured various outcomes as gait analysis, foot drop grading, functional ability and pain assessment. This study aimed to contribute to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation by comparing the effectiveness of motor relearning and PNF approaches for improving gait, pain, and functional mobility in hemiplegic patients. The findings may help guide therapists in selecting the most appropriate intervention for individual patients.
Read the detailed description
Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, with hemiplegia (muscle weakness or paralysis on one side of the body) being a common consequence. Rehabilitation plays a crucial role in improving gait, reducing pain and enhancing functional mobility for stroke patients. This study investigated the comparative effects of two rehabilitation approaches: Motor Relearning (MRP) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF).
Study Design: This was a randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups:
Group A: Motor Relearning Approach with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) Group B: Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique (PNF) with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS)
Randomization: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either group using a lottery method to ensure balance between groups.
Blinding: The assessor evaluating outcomes were blinded to group allocation (single-blinded).
Intervention: Both groups received an eight-week intervention program with assessments at baseline, week four, and week eight. Each session lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Group A (MRP with EMS): Participants performed motor relearning exercises targeting foot drop and gait patterns. EMS was integrated during specific exercises for targeted muscle activation.
Group B (PNF with EMS): Participants received PNF techniques designed to improve neuromuscular facilitation for gait and foot clearance. EMS was used alongside PNF exercises to enhance muscle response.
Outcome Measuring Tools:
Primary Outcomes: Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for gait analysis and Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) test for foot drop grading Secondary Outcomes: Motor Assessment Scale to measure of functional ability and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain assessment.
Ethical Considerations: This study has received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Data Analysis: Statistical software was used to analyze the data, with appropriate tests employed based on data normality to compare outcomes between groups.
- Conditions
- Stroke, Pain, Gait, Drop Foot, Foot Drop, Hemiplegia
- Being tested
- Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS), Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS)
- Keywords
- Motor Relearning, Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation, Muscle Stimulation, Gait Analysis, Functional Mobility
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke, Pain, Gait Disorders, Neurologic, Peroneal Neuropathies, Hemiplegia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS)Combination product
This arm received a 30-minute motor relearning program focused on improving foot drop and gait patterns and Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Targeted Activation (10 minutes) with 40 mA (default) adaptive, considering both intensity and duration for safe foot lift during walking.
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS)Combination product
This arm received a 30-minute intervention combining Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) techniques and EMS. The program consisted of:
PNF Techniques for Neuromuscular Facilitation (20 minutes) and Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Muscle Response Enhancement (10 minutes): Similar to Arm 1, EMS applied to the affected ankle dorsiflexors for 10 minutes with the same parameters.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Motor Relearning Approach with EMS (MRA + EMS) | Experimental | This arm received a 30-minute motor relearning program focused on improving foot drop and gait patterns. The program consisted of:
Motor Relearning Practice (20 minutes): Participants practiced walking, starting with individual components and gradually progressing to full walking sequences. The unaffected leg initiates each step, with the physiotherapist providing support as needed (Singh, 2017).
Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Targeted Activation (10 minutes): EMS applied to the affected ankle dorsiflexors for 10 minutes to stimulate muscle activation. The parameters were:
Pulse amplitude: 40 mA (default) Pulse duration: adjusted to achieve balanced maximum ankle dorsiflexion Mode: adaptive, considering both intensity and duration for safe foot lift during walking Electrode placement: on the affected ankle dorsiflexors Intensity: set to a comfortable level for the participant (Knutson \& Chae, 2010) Receives: Combination Product: Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS) |
| Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation with EMS (PNF + EMS) | Experimental | This arm received a 30-minute intervention combining Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) techniques and EMS. The program consisted of:
PNF Techniques for Neuromuscular Facilitation (20 minutes) in side-lying position with the affected leg uppermost. The sequence involved rhythmic initiation movements, measured using an alarm clock (Singh, 2017).
Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Muscle Response Enhancement (10 minutes): Similar to Arm 1, EMS applied to the affected ankle dorsiflexors for 10 minutes with the same parameters:
Pulse amplitude: 40 mA (default) Pulse duration: adjusted to achieve balanced maximum ankle dorsiflexion Mode: adaptive, considering both intensity and duration for safe foot lift during walking Electrode placement: on the affected ankle dorsiflexors Intensity: set to a comfortable level for the participant (Knutson \& Chae, 2010) Receives: Combination Product: Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Gait analysis
The Dynamic Gait Index was a standardized tool used to assess gait function in individuals with lower extremity impairments. It evaluated 8 components of gait, with higher scores indicating better gait quality. A total score below 19 suggests a higher risk of falls, whereas scores above 22 are associated with safe ambulation
Measured: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
Foot Drop
Manual Muscle Testing was a standardized test that assessed muscle strength on a 5-point scale (0 = no contraction to 5 = normal strength). This was used specifically for the affected leg's dorsiflexor muscles (Tibialis Anterior).
Measured: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
Secondary outcomes (2)
Functional Ability
The Motor Assessment Scale is a clinical tool designed to evaluate functional abilities in stroke patients, focusing on everyday motor functions. The scale ranges from a minimum score of 0 (indicating inability to perform tasks) to a maximum score of 6 (indicating optimal performance across all tasks). Higher scores reflect greater functional independence, making it a valuable assessment for rehabilitation settings.
Measured: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
Pain intensity
The Numeric Pain Rating Scale is a widely utilized tool for assessing pain intensity in adults. It operates on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 represents the worst pain imaginable. Higher scores on this scale signify greater pain intensity, making it a straightforward method for patients to communicate their pain levels to healthcare providers.
Measured: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Aug 2024
- Study start28 Jan 2024
- Primary completion15 Nov 2024
- Study completion17 Dec 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of LahoreThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Group A: Motor Relearning Approach with EMS Group B: Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with EMS
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 68 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Lahore
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Hamna Sarfraz, University of Lahore
- Investigators
- Faiza Sharif, PHD, Principal investigator, Associate ProfessorHira Riaz, MSOMPT, Study director, Assistant Professor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06539247
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Rec-UOL-/200/08/24
- Acronym
- CEMRA-PNF
- Status last verified
- Dec 2024
- First submitted
- 1 Aug 2024
- Last updated
- 24 Dec 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: The data was collected from the Sehat Medical Complex, Hanjarwal and University of Lahore Teaching Hospital, Lahore after taking informed written consent form through the questionnaires. A comparative analysis was conducted between Group A and Group B, evaluating improvements in MMT Grading , Dynamic Gait Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Motor Assessment scale scores. The data was entered and analyzed using SPSS Version 24.
Publications
Beebe JA, Kronman C, Mahmud F, Basch M, Hogan M, Li E, Ploski C, Simons LE. Gait Variability and Relationships With Fear, Avoidance, and Pain in Adolescents With Chronic Pain. Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 4;101(4):pzab012. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab012.
PubMed 33482005Kagawa S, Koyama T, Hosomi M, Takebayashi T, Hanada K, Hashimoto F, Domen K. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on spasticity in patients with hemiparesis after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 May;22(4):364-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2011.09.021. Epub 2011 Nov 10.
PubMed 22078779Knutson JS, Chae J. A novel neuromuscular electrical stimulation treatment for recovery of ankle dorsiflexion in chronic hemiplegia: a case series pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Aug;89(8):672-82. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181e29bd7.
PubMed 20531158Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard A. Mental practice in chronic stroke: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Stroke. 2007 Apr;38(4):1293-7. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000260205.67348.2b. Epub 2007 Mar 1.
PubMed 17332444Anandan, D., PK, T. N., Arun, B., & Priya, V. (2020). Effect of task specific training with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on stroke survivors. Biomedicine, 40(3), 363-366.
Kanase, S. B. (2020). Effect of motor relearning programme and conventional training on functional mobility in post stroke patients. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 11(5), 496-501.
Singha, R. (2017). Motor Relearning Program versus Proprioceptive Neuro-Muscular Facilitation Technique for Improving Basic Mobility in Chronic Stroke Patients-A Comparative Study. Int J Physiother Res, 5(6), 2490-2500.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Dec 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Effects of Motor Relearning Approach Versus Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique (PNF) on Pain, Foot Drop, Gait and Functional Mobility in Hemiplegic Patients
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06539247
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CEMRA-PNF / Rec-UOL-/200/08/24
- Conditions
- Stroke, Pain, Gait, Drop Foot, Foot Drop, Hemiplegia
- Keywords
- Motor Relearning, Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation, Muscle Stimulation, Gait Analysis, Functional Mobility
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 68 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LahoreUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 28 Jan 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Nov 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 17 Dec 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Aug 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This single blinded randomized control study aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of two rehabilitation approaches for improving pain, foot drop, gait, and functional mobility in patients with hemiplegia. The study recruited 68 patients diagnosed with hemiplegia who met specific inclusion criteria. Both groups received a treatment program lasting eight weeks, with assessments at baseline, week four, and week eight. The study measured various outcomes as gait analysis, foot drop grading, functional ability and pain assessment. This study aimed to contribute to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation by comparing the effectiveness of motor relearning and PNF approaches for improving gait, pain, and functional mobility in hemiplegic patients. The findings may help guide therapists in selecting the most appropriate intervention for individual patients.
Detailed description
Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, with hemiplegia (muscle weakness or paralysis on one side of the body) being a common consequence. Rehabilitation plays a crucial role in improving gait, reducing pain and enhancing functional mobility for stroke patients. This study investigated the comparative effects of two rehabilitation approaches: Motor Relearning (MRP) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF).
Study Design: This was a randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups:
Group A: Motor Relearning Approach with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) Group B: Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique (PNF) with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS)
Randomization: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either group using a lottery method to ensure balance between groups.
Blinding: The assessor evaluating outcomes were blinded to group allocation (single-blinded).
Intervention: Both groups received an eight-week intervention program with assessments at baseline, week four, and week eight. Each session lasted approximately 30 minutes.
Group A (MRP with EMS): Participants performed motor relearning exercises targeting foot drop and gait patterns. EMS was integrated during specific exercises for targeted muscle activation.
Group B (PNF with EMS): Participants received PNF techniques designed to improve neuromuscular facilitation for gait and foot clearance. EMS was used alongside PNF exercises to enhance muscle response.
Outcome Measuring Tools:
Primary Outcomes: Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for gait analysis and Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) test for foot drop grading Secondary Outcomes: Motor Assessment Scale to measure of functional ability and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain assessment.
Ethical Considerations: This study has received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Data Analysis: Statistical software was used to analyze the data, with appropriate tests employed based on data normality to compare outcomes between groups.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Group A: Motor Relearning Approach with EMS Group B: Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with EMS
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Motor Relearning Approach with EMS (MRA + EMS) | Experimental | Combination Product: Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS)This arm received a 30-minute motor relearning program focused on improving foot drop and gait patterns. The program consisted of: Motor Relearning Practice (20 minutes): Participants practiced walking, starting with individual components and gradually progressing to full walking sequences. The unaffected leg initiates each step, with the physiotherapist providing support as needed (Singh, 2017). Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Targeted Activation (10 minutes): EMS applied to the affected ankle dorsiflexors for 10 minutes to stimulate muscle activation. The parameters were: Pulse amplitude: 40 mA (default) Pulse duration: adjusted to achieve balanced maximum ankle dorsiflexion Mode: adaptive, considering both intensity and duration for safe foot lift during walking Electrode placement: on the affected ankle dorsiflexors Intensity: set to a comfortable level for the participant (Knutson \& Chae, 2010) |
| Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation with EMS (PNF + EMS) | Experimental | Combination Product: Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS)This arm received a 30-minute intervention combining Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) techniques and EMS. The program consisted of: PNF Techniques for Neuromuscular Facilitation (20 minutes) in side-lying position with the affected leg uppermost. The sequence involved rhythmic initiation movements, measured using an alarm clock (Singh, 2017). Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Muscle Response Enhancement (10 minutes): Similar to Arm 1, EMS applied to the affected ankle dorsiflexors for 10 minutes with the same parameters: Pulse amplitude: 40 mA (default) Pulse duration: adjusted to achieve balanced maximum ankle dorsiflexion Mode: adaptive, considering both intensity and duration for safe foot lift during walking Electrode placement: on the affected ankle dorsiflexors Intensity: set to a comfortable level for the participant (Knutson \& Chae, 2010) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 45 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Patients having age between 45 to 65 years (Kagawa et al., 2013)
- Hemiplegic, impaired functional mobility and dependent (Kanase, 2020)
- Functional deficits in lower limb, with both the Sexes and any side (left or right) (Kanase, 2020)
- Patients having hemiplegia within 6 months might be post-stroke, able to follow instructions (Kanase, 2020)
- Diagnosed with hemiplegia having a stable neurological condition (e.g., stroke) (Anandan et al., 2020)
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Subjects having any medical condition that affects his/her performance (Kanase, 2020)
- Completely recovered case of Hemiplegia in terms of walking abilities \& upper limb activities (Kanase, 2020)
- Subjects with Transient Ischemic Attack (Kanase, 2020)
- Other neurological conditions such as severe cognitive impairments
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS)This arm received a 30-minute motor relearning program focused on improving foot drop and gait patterns and Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Targeted Activation (10 minutes) with 40 mA (default) adaptive, considering both intensity and duration for safe foot lift during walking. | Combination product | Motor Relearning Approach with EMS (MRA + EMS) |
| Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS)This arm received a 30-minute intervention combining Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) techniques and EMS. The program consisted of: PNF Techniques for Neuromuscular Facilitation (20 minutes) and Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) for Muscle Response Enhancement (10 minutes): Similar to Arm 1, EMS applied to the affected ankle dorsiflexors for 10 minutes with the same parameters. | Combination product | Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation with EMS (PNF + EMS) |
Primary outcome
Gait analysis
Time frame: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
The Dynamic Gait Index was a standardized tool used to assess gait function in individuals with lower extremity impairments. It evaluated 8 components of gait, with higher scores indicating better gait quality. A total score below 19 suggests a higher risk of falls, whereas scores above 22 are associated with safe ambulation
Foot Drop
Time frame: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
Manual Muscle Testing was a standardized test that assessed muscle strength on a 5-point scale (0 = no contraction to 5 = normal strength). This was used specifically for the affected leg's dorsiflexor muscles (Tibialis Anterior).
2 secondary outcomes
Functional Ability
Time frame: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
Pain intensity
Time frame: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Dec 2024.
- Background: PubMed 33482005Beebe JA, Kronman C, Mahmud F, Basch M, Hogan M, Li E, Ploski C, Simons LE. Gait Variability and Relationships With Fear, Avoidance, and Pain in Adolescents With Chronic Pain. Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 4;101(4):pzab012. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab012.
- Background: PubMed 22078779Kagawa S, Koyama T, Hosomi M, Takebayashi T, Hanada K, Hashimoto F, Domen K. Effects of constraint-induced movement therapy on spasticity in patients with hemiparesis after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 May;22(4):364-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2011.09.021. Epub 2011 Nov 10.
- Background: PubMed 20531158Knutson JS, Chae J. A novel neuromuscular electrical stimulation treatment for recovery of ankle dorsiflexion in chronic hemiplegia: a case series pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Aug;89(8):672-82. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181e29bd7.
- Background: PubMed 17332444Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard A. Mental practice in chronic stroke: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Stroke. 2007 Apr;38(4):1293-7. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000260205.67348.2b. Epub 2007 Mar 1.
- BackgroundAnandan, D., PK, T. N., Arun, B., & Priya, V. (2020). Effect of task specific training with proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on stroke survivors. Biomedicine, 40(3), 363-366.
- BackgroundKanase, S. B. (2020). Effect of motor relearning programme and conventional training on functional mobility in post stroke patients. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 11(5), 496-501.
- BackgroundSingha, R. (2017). Motor Relearning Program versus Proprioceptive Neuro-Muscular Facilitation Technique for Improving Basic Mobility in Chronic Stroke Patients-A Comparative Study. Int J Physiother Res, 5(6), 2490-2500.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. The data was collected from the Sehat Medical Complex, Hanjarwal and University of Lahore Teaching Hospital, Lahore after taking informed written consent form through the questionnaires. A comparative analysis was conducted between Group A and Group B, evaluating improvements in MMT Grading , Dynamic Gait Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Motor Assessment scale scores. The data was entered and analyzed using SPSS Version 24.
Related trials for Stroke
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Longitudinal Cohort Study to Evaluate Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Disease in Haiti
Hypertension, Diabetes
Active, not recruiting
Improving Visual Field Deficits With Noninvasive Brain Stimulation
Visual Field Defect, Peripheral, Stroke
Recruiting
Early Closure of Left Atrial Appendage for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Stroke Despite Anticoagulation Therapy
Ischemic Stroke, Atrial Fibrillation
Active, not recruiting
Developing a Learning COmmunity to Increase eNgagemeNt and Enrollment in Cardiovascular Clinical Trials (CONNECT)
Cardiovascular Diseases, Hypertension
RecruitingObservational study
Continuous Dual Aspiration Technique With Zoom System for Stroke
Ischemic Stroke, Acute Stroke
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Faiza Sharif, PHD principal investigator
Associate Professor
Hira Riaz, MSOMPT study director
Assistant Professor
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Motor Relearning Program with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (MRA + EMS) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Technique with Electrical Muscle Stimulation (PNF + EMS) in people with Stroke and Pain, run by University of Lahore at 1 site in Pakistan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Dec 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Pakistan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Gait analysis (time frame: 8 weeks (baseline, fourth week and then at the end of the 8 week)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06539247, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Dec 2024; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.