Mental practice-based rehabilitation training to improve arm function and daily activity performance in stroke patients: a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Over 50% of patients with upper limb paresis resulting from stroke face long-term impaired arm function and ensuing disability in daily life. Unfortunately, the number of effective treatments aimed at improving arm function due to stroke is still low. This study aims to evaluate a new therapy for improving arm function in sub-acute stroke patients based on mental practice theories and functional task-oriented training, and to study the predictors for a positive treatment result. It is hypothesized that a six-week, mental practice-based training program (additional to regular therapy) targeting the specific upper extremity skills important to the individual patient will significantly improve both arm function and daily activity performance, as well as being cost effective.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>One hundred and sixty sub-acute stroke patients with upper limb paresis (MRC grade 1–3) will participate in a single-blinded, multi-centre RCT. The experimental group will undertake a six-week, individually tailored therapy regime focused on improving arm function using mental practice. The control group will perform bimanual upper extremity exercises in addition to regular therapy. Total contact time and training intensity will be similar for both groups. Measurements will be taken at therapy onset, after its cessation and during the follow-up period (after 6 and 12 months). Primary outcome measures will assess upper extremity functioning on the ICF level of daily life activity (Wolf Motor Function Test, Frenchay Arm Test, accelerometry), while secondary outcome measures cover the ICF impairment level (Brunnstrom-Fu-Meyer test). Level of societal participation (IPA) and quality of life (EuroQol; SS-Qol) will also be tested. Costs will be based on a cost questionnaire, and statistical analyses on MAN(C)OVA and GEE (generalized estimated equations).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this study will provide evidence on the effectiveness of this mental practice-based rehabilitation training, as well as the cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials [ISRCTN33487341)</p

Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach

<div><p>Background</p><p>Non-inferiority trials are performed when the main therapeutic effect of the new therapy is expected to be not unacceptably worse than that of the standard therapy, and the new therapy is expected to have advantages over the standard therapy in costs or other (health) consequences. These advantages however are not included in the classic frequentist approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials. In contrast, the decision theory approach of sample size calculation does include these factors. The objective of this study is to compare the conceptual and practical aspects of the frequentist approach and decision theory approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials, thereby demonstrating that the decision theory approach is more appropriate for sample size calculation of non-inferiority trials.</p><p>Methods</p><p>The frequentist approach and decision theory approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials are compared and applied to a case of a non-inferiority trial on individually tailored duration of elastic compression stocking therapy compared to two years elastic compression stocking therapy for the prevention of post thrombotic syndrome after deep vein thrombosis.</p><p>Results</p><p>The two approaches differ substantially in conceptual background, analytical approach, and input requirements. The sample size calculated according to the frequentist approach yielded 788 patients, using a power of 80% and a one-sided significance level of 5%. The decision theory approach indicated that the optimal sample size was 500 patients, with a net value of €92 million.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>This study demonstrates and explains the differences between the classic frequentist approach and the decision theory approach of sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials. We argue that the decision theory approach of sample size estimation is most suitable for sample size calculation of non-inferiority trials.</p></div