Effectiveness of Mirror Therapy in Stroke Patients With Unilateral Neglect - A Randomized Controlled Trial (MUST)

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. Identifier: NCT01735877
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : November 28, 2012
Results First Posted : June 30, 2014
Last Update Posted : June 30, 2014
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
jeyarajpandian, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India

November 26, 2012
November 28, 2012
December 10, 2013
June 30, 2014
June 30, 2014
January 2011
July 2013   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
  • Change From Baseline in Star Cancellation Test Scores at 1,3, and 6 Months [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1,3 and 6 months ]

    The SCT consisted of a page containing 52 large stars, 10 short words and 13 letters, randomly positioned, with 56 small stars interspersed. Subjects were instructed to cross out (with a black pen) all the small stars across the page. The tester demonstrated by crossing out the two central stars. The cut off score to establish presence of unilateral visual neglect were: 51 or fewer stars cancelled for SCT.

    Minimum score: 0 Maximum score: 54

    Higher scores: better outcome

  • Change From Baseline in Line Bisection Test Scores at 1,3, and 6 Months [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1,3 and 6 months ]

    The Line Bisection Test (LBT) consisted of three horizontal black lines, 20 cm long, one to the right, one central and one to the left side of a sheet of white paper (21cms X 30 cms). The patients were asked to find and mark the centre of each line in turn. Errors away from true midline were measured, with leftward errors being given a negative sign, rightward errors a positive sign.

    We took an absolute value for the change in error. The values for baseline to 1 month were calculated by subtracting baseline values from 1 month values. Then, the mean change was calculated for baseline to 1 month. Similar method was followed for the calculation of mean change in baseline to 3 months and 6 months.

    The patients responses were similar for the three lines that they marked hence we took the first line for the interpretation. None of the patients had extreme errors like missed marking at 3 and 6 months.

  • Change From Baseline in Picture Identification Task at 1,3, and 6 Months [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1,3 and 6 months ]
    PIT consisted of 10 pictures on A4 size paper and patients were asked to identify pictures. More the number of pictures identified, lesser was the neglect.
Unilateral neglect assessment tests [ Time Frame: 3 years ]
Brunnstrom's stage of recovery Star cancellation test score Line bisection test score Catherine Bergego scale score
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01735877 on Archive Site
  • Functional Independence Measure [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months ]

    The FIM consists of 13 motor and 5 social-cognitive items, assessing self-care, sphincter management, transfer, locomotion, communication, social interaction and cognition.14 It uses a 7-level scale anchored by extreme rating of total dependence as 1 and complete independence as 7; the intermediate levels are: 6 modified independence, 5 supervision or set-up, 4 minimal contact assistance, 3 moderate assistance and 2 maximal assistance.

    For the purpose of analysis we divided FIM into two categories ≤5 dependent, ≥6 independent.

  • Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) [ Time Frame: Baseline, 1,3 and 6 months ]

    0 - No symptoms at all / 1 - No significant disability despite symptoms / 2 - Slight disability / 3 -Moderate disability, but able to walk without assistance / 4 - Moderate disability and unable to walk without assistance / 5 - Severe disability / 6 - death

    0-2: Good outcome 3-6: Poor outcome

Functional independence measure [ Time Frame: 3 years ]
Functional independence measure
Not Provided
Not Provided
Effectiveness of Mirror Therapy in Stroke Patients With Unilateral Neglect - A Randomized Controlled Trial
Effectiveness of Mirror Therapy in Stroke Patients With Unilateral Neglect - A Randomized Controlled Trial

Hemi spatial neglect, or the tendency to ignore stimuli originating in a portion of the environment contra lateral to a cerebral lesion, can be a major source of functional handicap after stroke. The currently available treatments for unilateral neglect are scanning training, visual cuing approaches, limb activation strategies, visual imagery, tactile stimulation, prisms and sustained attention training.Mirror therapy improves the hand function in sub-acute stroke.

Hypothesis: To evaluate the effectiveness of Mirror therapy in the management of stroke patients with unilateral neglect.

About 30 - 50% of stroke patients are left with considerable residual deficits. The post stroke disabilities are due to loss of locomotion and activities of daily living, cognition and communication skills.Hemispatial neglect has been reported in association with damage to several different cerebral structures in a large-scale distributed neurocognitive network.Mirror therapy improves the hand function in sub-acute stroke. It also helps in the recovery of neglect in stroke patients. But little consensus exists as to whether one treatment is more efficacious than others and many studies fail to document duration of treatment effects or generalization to daily activities. The aim of our study is to evaluate the effectiveness of limb activation with MT and limb activation strategy alone in the management of stroke patients with unilateral neglect and to make the patient functional in activities of daily living.
Phase 3
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Hemispatial Neglect
  • Other: Mirror therapy
    During the mirror practices, patients were seated close to a table on which a mirror (35×35cm) was placed vertically. The practice consisted of non paretic-side wrist and finger flexion and extension movements while patients looked into the mirror, watching the image of their noninvolved hand, thus seeing the reflection of the hand movement projected over the involved hand. Patients could see only the noninvolved hand in the mirror; otherwise, the noninvolved hand was hidden from sight. During the session patients were asked to try to do the same movements with the paretic hand while they were moving the non paretic hand.
  • Other: Control group
    The control group performed the same exercises for the same duration but used the nonreflecting side of the mirror in such a way that the paretic hand was hidden from sight. The same therapist delivered the control therapy to the patients. Both the treatment and the control group received limb activation.
  • Experimental: Mirror therapy
    All eligible patients will be randomly allocated into 2 groups. Group 1 will be given Mirror therapy
    Intervention: Other: Mirror therapy
  • Sham Comparator: Control group
    Group 2 will be given sham mirror therapy
    Intervention: Other: Control group
Pandian JD, Arora R, Kaur P, Sharma D, Vishwambaran DK, Arima H. Mirror therapy in unilateral neglect after stroke (MUST trial): a randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 2014 Sep 9;83(11):1012-7. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000773. Epub 2014 Aug 8.

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
August 2013
July 2013   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria: 1.All stroke patients with parietal lobe and thalamic lesions 2. Stroke duration: within 48 hours 3. Patients willing to participate in the study 4. MRI/ CT scan showing parietal lobe and thalamic lesion 5. Patients with upper limb weakness

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Stroke duration more than 1 yr
  2. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of less than 7
  3. Uncooperative patients
Sexes Eligible for Study: All
18 Years and older   (Adult, Senior)
Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
Not Provided
Not Provided
jeyarajpandian, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India
Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India
Not Provided
Principal Investigator: Jeyaraj Pandian, DM BFUHS
Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, India
May 2014

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP