Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The literature suggests a beneficial effect of motor imagery (MI) if combined with physical practice, but detailed descriptions of MI training session (MITS) elements and temporal parameters are lacking. The aim of this review was to identify the characteristics of a successful MITS and compare these for different disciplines, MI session types, task focus, age, gender and MI modification during intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An extended systematic literature search using 24 databases was performed for five disciplines: Education, Medicine, Music, Psychology and Sports. References that described an MI intervention that focused on motor skills, performance or strength improvement were included. Information describing 17 MITS elements was extracted based on the PETTLEP (physical, environment, timing, task, learning, emotion, perspective) approach. Seven elements describing the MITS temporal parameters were calculated: study duration, intervention duration, MITS duration, total MITS count, MITS per week, MI trials per MITS and total MI training time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both independent reviewers found 96% congruity, which was tested on a random sample of 20% of all references. After selection, 133 studies reporting 141 MI interventions were included. The locations of the MITS and position of the participants during MI were task-specific. Participants received acoustic detailed MI instructions, which were mostly standardised and live. During MI practice, participants kept their eyes closed. MI training was performed from an internal perspective with a kinaesthetic mode. Changes in MI content, duration and dosage were reported in 31 MI interventions. Familiarisation sessions before the start of the MI intervention were mentioned in 17 reports. MI interventions focused with decreasing relevance on motor-, cognitive- and strength-focused tasks. Average study intervention lasted 34 days, with participants practicing MI on average three times per week for 17 minutes, with 34 MI trials. Average total MI time was 178 minutes including 13 MITS. Reporting rate varied between 25.5% and 95.5%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>MITS elements of successful interventions were individual, supervised and non-directed sessions, added after physical practice. Successful design characteristics were dominant in the Psychology literature, in interventions focusing on motor and strength-related tasks, in interventions with participants aged 20 to 29 years old, and in MI interventions including participants of both genders. Systematic searching of the MI literature was constrained by the lack of a defined MeSH term.</p

Problem of plagiarism and its detection

BACKGROUND: Effective maintenance therapies after chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide improves survival in patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation. METHODS: The phase 3 START trial was an international, randomised, double-blind trial that recruited patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer who had completed chemoradiotherapy within the 4-12 week window before randomisation and received confirmation of stable disease or objective response. Patients were stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), response to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (concurrent vs sequential), and region using block randomisation, and were randomly assigned (2:1, double-blind) by a central interactive voice randomisation system to either tecemotide or placebo. Injections of tecemotide (806 mug lipopeptide) or placebo were given every week for 8 weeks, and then every 6 weeks until disease progression or withdrawal. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) (before tecemotide) or saline (before placebo) was given once before the first study drug administration. The primary endpoint was overall survival in a modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00409188. FINDINGS: From Feb 22, 2007, to Nov 15, 2011, 1513 patients were randomly assigned (1006 to tecemotide and 507 to placebo). 274 patients were excluded from the primary analysis population as a result of a clinical hold, resulting in analysis of 829 patients in the tecemotide group and 410 in the placebo group in the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was 25.6 months (95% CI 22.5-29.2) with tecemotide versus 22.3 months (19.6-25.5) with placebo (adjusted HR 0.88, 0.75-1.03; p=0.123). In the patients who received previous concurrent chemoradiotherapy, median overall survival for the 538 (65%) of 829 patients assigned to tecemotide was 30.8 months (95% CI 25.6-36.8) compared with 20.6 months (17.4-23.9) for the 268 (65%) of 410 patients assigned to placebo (adjusted HR 0.78, 0.64-0.95; p=0.016). In patients who received previous sequential chemoradiotherapy, overall survival did not differ between the 291 (35%) patients in the tecemotide group and the 142 (35%) patients in the placebo group (19.4 months [95% CI 17.6-23.1] vs 24.6 months [18.8-33.0], respectively; adjusted HR 1.12, 0.87-1.44; p=0.38). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were dyspnoea (49 [5%] of 1024 patients in the tecemotide group vs 21 [4%] of 477 patients in the placebo group), metastases to central nervous system (29 [3%] vs 6 [1%]), and pneumonia (23 [2%] vs 12 [3%]). Serious adverse events with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were pneumonia (30 [3%] in the tecemotide group vs 14 [3%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [3%] vs 13 [3%]), and metastases to central nervous system (32 [3%] vs 9 [2%]). Serious immune-related adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: We found no significant difference in overall survival with the administration of tecemotide after chemoradiotherapy compared with placebo for all patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. However, tecemotide might have a role for patients who initially receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and further study in this population is warranted. FUNDING: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)