Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine ›› 2023, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (2): 352-358.DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2023.02.006
• Original articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
Effectiveness on post-stroke hemiplegia in patients: electroacupuncture plus cycling vs electroacupuncture alone
Minh Duc Nguyen1, Thanh Van Tran2, Quoc Vinh Nguyen3, Ninh Khac Nguyen4, Son Truong Vu5, Luu Trong Nguyen6, Linh Vu Phuong Dang7(
)
- 1 Senior Specialist Clinic, National Hospital of Acupuncture, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
2 Department of Senior Specialist National Hospital of Acupuncture, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
3 Department of Senior Specialist, Military Institute of Traditional Medicine, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
4 Department of Training and Science, National Hospital of Acupuncture, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
5 Department of Senior Specialist, National Hospital of Acupuncture, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
6 Department of Rehabilitation, 108 Military Central Hospital, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
7 Department of Medicine, Dai Nam University, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam
-
Received:2021-12-02Accepted:2022-06-15Online:2023-04-15Published:2023-03-14 -
Contact:Linh Vu Phuong Dang -
About author:Dr. Linh Vu Phuong Dang, Department of Medicine, Dai Nam University, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam. phuonglinh.j@gmail.com. Telephone: +84-974782904
Cite this article
Minh Duc Nguyen, Thanh Van Tran, Quoc Vinh Nguyen, Ninh Khac Nguyen, Son Truong Vu, Luu Trong Nguyen, Linh Vu Phuong Dang. Effectiveness on post-stroke hemiplegia in patients: electroacupuncture plus cycling vs electroacupuncture alone[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2023, 43(2): 352-358.
share this article
Table 1 Average of muscle grades prior and post-treatment ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | ||||||
| Quadriceps | 1.6±0.9 | 3.8±0.4 | 1.8±0.8 | 3.5±0.6 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Tibialis anterior | 0.7±0.7 | 2.9±0.8 | 0.9±0.7 | 2.2±0.6 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Deltoid | 0.9±0.9 | 3.0±0.9 | 1.2±0.9 | 2.4±0.7 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Biceps | 1.2±0.9 | 3.5±0.7 | 1.4±0.9 | 3.0±0.7 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
Table 1 Average of muscle grades prior and post-treatment ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | ||||||
| Quadriceps | 1.6±0.9 | 3.8±0.4 | 1.8±0.8 | 3.5±0.6 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Tibialis anterior | 0.7±0.7 | 2.9±0.8 | 0.9±0.7 | 2.2±0.6 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Deltoid | 0.9±0.9 | 3.0±0.9 | 1.2±0.9 | 2.4±0.7 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Biceps | 1.2±0.9 | 3.5±0.7 | 1.4±0.9 | 3.0±0.7 | < 0.01 | ||||
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||||
Table 2 Difference in average of muscle grades prior and post-treatment ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | 2.2±0.9 | 1.7±0.9 | < 0.01 |
| Tibialis anterior | 2.1±0.9 | 1.3±0.6 | < 0.01 |
| Deltoid | 2.1±1.2 | 1.2±0.9 | < 0.01 |
| Biceps | 2.4±0.9 | 1.6±0.9 | < 0.01 |
Table 2 Difference in average of muscle grades prior and post-treatment ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | 2.2±0.9 | 1.7±0.9 | < 0.01 |
| Tibialis anterior | 2.1±0.9 | 1.3±0.6 | < 0.01 |
| Deltoid | 2.1±1.2 | 1.2±0.9 | < 0.01 |
| Biceps | 2.4±0.9 | 1.6±0.9 | < 0.01 |
Table 3 Differences between two groups in different criteria ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Criteria | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | |||
| Modified Rankin Scale | 3.8±0.4 | 2.2±0.9 | 3.9±0.3 | 2.7±0.8 | < 0.01 | |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | ||||
| Difference | 1.6±0.8 | 1.1±0.6 | < 0.01 | |||
| Barthel scale | 33.4±8.5 | 82.6±13.9 | < 0.01 | 69.8±14.0 | < 0.01 | |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | ||||
| Difference | 49.2±11.8 | 34.9±8.5 | < 0.01 | |||
| Orgogozo scale | 28.2±8.1 | 71.8±13.2 | 31.3±9.1 | 62.9±11.4 | < 0.01 | |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | ||||
| Difference | 43.6±12.8 | 31.58±9.50 | < 0.01 | |||
Table 3 Differences between two groups in different criteria ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Criteria | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | |||
| Modified Rankin Scale | 3.8±0.4 | 2.2±0.9 | 3.9±0.3 | 2.7±0.8 | < 0.01 | |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | ||||
| Difference | 1.6±0.8 | 1.1±0.6 | < 0.01 | |||
| Barthel scale | 33.4±8.5 | 82.6±13.9 | < 0.01 | 69.8±14.0 | < 0.01 | |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | ||||
| Difference | 49.2±11.8 | 34.9±8.5 | < 0.01 | |||
| Orgogozo scale | 28.2±8.1 | 71.8±13.2 | 31.3±9.1 | 62.9±11.4 | < 0.01 | |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | ||||
| Difference | 43.6±12.8 | 31.58±9.50 | < 0.01 | |||
Table 4 Change the degree of disability before and after treatment according to the modified Rankin scale
| Improvement | CT | AT | P value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | ||||
| Good | 38 | 63.3 | 24 | 25 | < 0.01 | ||
| Fair | 18 | 30 | 37 | 61.7 | |||
| Poor | 4 | 6.7 | 9 | 13.3 | |||
| Total | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | |||
Table 4 Change the degree of disability before and after treatment according to the modified Rankin scale
| Improvement | CT | AT | P value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | ||||
| Good | 38 | 63.3 | 24 | 25 | < 0.01 | ||
| Fair | 18 | 30 | 37 | 61.7 | |||
| Poor | 4 | 6.7 | 9 | 13.3 | |||
| Total | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | |||
Table 5 Evaluation of the independence in daily life on a Barthel scale before and after treatment
| Degree | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | |||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |||||||||
| Mildly dependence | 0 | 0 | 38 | 61.7 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 23.3 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Moderate dependence | 45 | 75.0 | 22 | 38.3 | 47 | 78.3 | 46 | 76.7 | ||||||||
| Severe dependence | 15 | 25.0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 21.7 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Total | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | ||||||||
| P value (1)(3) | > 0.05 | |||||||||||||||
Table 5 Evaluation of the independence in daily life on a Barthel scale before and after treatment
| Degree | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | |||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |||||||||
| Mildly dependence | 0 | 0 | 38 | 61.7 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 23.3 | < 0.01 | |||||||
| Moderate dependence | 45 | 75.0 | 22 | 38.3 | 47 | 78.3 | 46 | 76.7 | ||||||||
| Severe dependence | 15 | 25.0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 21.7 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Total | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | ||||||||
| P value (1)(3) | > 0.05 | |||||||||||||||
Table 6 Evaluation the change on an Orgogozo scale
| Degree | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | ||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||||||||
| Good | 0 | 0 | 8 | 13.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | < 0.01 | ||||||
| Fair | 0 | 0 | 31 | 51.7 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 35.0 | |||||||
| Average | 1 | 1.7 | 17 | 28.3 | 4 | 6.7 | 35 | 58.3 | |||||||
| Poor | 59 | 98.3 | 4 | 6.7 | 56 | 93.3 | 4 | 6.7 | |||||||
| Total | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | |||||||
| P value (1)(3) | > 0.05 | ||||||||||||||
Table 6 Evaluation the change on an Orgogozo scale
| Degree | CT | AT | P value (2)(4) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prior (1) | Post (2) | Prior (3) | Post (4) | ||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||||||||
| Good | 0 | 0 | 8 | 13.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | < 0.01 | ||||||
| Fair | 0 | 0 | 31 | 51.7 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 35.0 | |||||||
| Average | 1 | 1.7 | 17 | 28.3 | 4 | 6.7 | 35 | 58.3 | |||||||
| Poor | 59 | 98.3 | 4 | 6.7 | 56 | 93.3 | 4 | 6.7 | |||||||
| Total | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | 60 | 100 | |||||||
| P value (1)(3) | > 0.05 | ||||||||||||||
Table 7 Electromyography prior and post treatment in CT group ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | Prior | Post | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 151.0±145.4 | 481.5±318.6 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.4±2.6 | 6.2±3.4 | < 0.01 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 108.3±104.6 | 367.0±244.8 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 1.0±1.5 | 6.3±3.4 | < 0.05 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 103.2±132.1 | 353.0±181.9 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 1.3±1.9 | 6.1±3.0 | < 0.01 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 129.5±160.4 | 406.8±198.3 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.1±2.8 | 7.8±3.4 | < 0.01 | |
Table 7 Electromyography prior and post treatment in CT group ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | Prior | Post | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 151.0±145.4 | 481.5±318.6 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.4±2.6 | 6.2±3.4 | < 0.01 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 108.3±104.6 | 367.0±244.8 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 1.0±1.5 | 6.3±3.4 | < 0.05 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 103.2±132.1 | 353.0±181.9 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 1.3±1.9 | 6.1±3.0 | < 0.01 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 129.5±160.4 | 406.8±198.3 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.1±2.8 | 7.8±3.4 | < 0.01 | |
Table 8 Comparison of electromyography before and after treatment of the AT group ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | Prior | Post | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 138.8±135.3 | 233.5±185.6 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 2.2±2.4 | 4.8±3.1 | < 0.05 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 81.9±135.6 | 191.3±135.1 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 1.3±2.4 | 4.1±3.0 | < 0.01 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 125.2±134.3 | 147.8±136.2 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.1±2.8 | 3.4±2.6 | < 0.01 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 154.7±150.6 | 181.7±162.8 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.8±3.4 | 3.8±2.9 | < 0.01 | |
Table 8 Comparison of electromyography before and after treatment of the AT group ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | Prior | Post | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 138.8±135.3 | 233.5±185.6 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 2.2±2.4 | 4.8±3.1 | < 0.05 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 81.9±135.6 | 191.3±135.1 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 1.3±2.4 | 4.1±3.0 | < 0.01 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 125.2±134.3 | 147.8±136.2 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.1±2.8 | 3.4±2.6 | < 0.01 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 154.7±150.6 | 181.7±162.8 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 2.8±3.4 | 3.8±2.9 | < 0.01 | |
Table 9 Electromyography before and after the treatment of the CT and AT groups ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 481.5±318.6 | 372.3±165.5 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 8.6±4.1 | 7.1±2.8 | < 0.05 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 367.0±244.8 | 273.2±128.9 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 6.3±3.4 | 5.4±2.9 | < 0.05 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 353.0±181.9 | 273.0±138.3 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 6.1±3.0 | 5.5±2.9 | < 0.05 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 406.8±198.3 | 336.4±162.3 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 7.8±3.4 | 6.4±2.8 | < 0.05 | |
Table 9 Electromyography before and after the treatment of the CT and AT groups ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 481.5±318.6 | 372.3±165.5 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 8.6±4.1 | 7.1±2.8 | < 0.05 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 367.0±244.8 | 273.2±128.9 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 6.3±3.4 | 5.4±2.9 | < 0.05 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 353.0±181.9 | 273.0±138.3 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 6.1±3.0 | 5.5±2.9 | < 0.05 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 406.8±198.3 | 336.4±162.3 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 7.8±3.4 | 6.4±2.8 | < 0.05 | |
Table 10 Comparing the differences in electromechanical indicators before and after treatment ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 330.5±274.6 | 233.5±185.6 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 6.2±3.4 | 4.8±3.1 | < 0.05 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 258.7±179.7 | 191.3±135.1 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 5.3±3.3 | 4.1±3.0 | < 0.05 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 249.8±169.7 | 147.8±136.2 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 4.8±2.6 | 3.4±2.6 | < 0.01 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 277.3±145.1 | 181.7±162.8 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 5.8±3.4 | 3.8±2.9 | < 0.01 | |
Table 10 Comparing the differences in electromechanical indicators before and after treatment ($\bar{x}\pm s$)
| Muscle | CT | AT | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quadriceps | Frequency | 330.5±274.6 | 233.5±185.6 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 6.2±3.4 | 4.8±3.1 | < 0.05 | |
| Tibialis anterior | Frequency | 258.7±179.7 | 191.3±135.1 | < 0.05 |
| Amplitude | 5.3±3.3 | 4.1±3.0 | < 0.05 | |
| Deltoid | Frequency | 249.8±169.7 | 147.8±136.2 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 4.8±2.6 | 3.4±2.6 | < 0.01 | |
| Biceps | Frequency | 277.3±145.1 | 181.7±162.8 | < 0.01 |
| Amplitude | 5.8±3.4 | 3.8±2.9 | < 0.01 | |
| 1. | World Stroke Orgranization. Global Stroke Fact Sheet 2022 online, 2022, cited 2022-02-12; 2; 15 screens. Available from URL: https://www.world-stroke.org/assets/downloads/WSO_Global_Stroke_Fact_Sheet.pdf. |
| 2. |
Yamanashi H, Ngoc MQ, Huy TV, et al. Population-based incidence rates of first-ever stroke in central Vietnam. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0160665.
DOI URL |
| 3. |
DALYs GBD, Collaborators H. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2017; 390: 1260-344.
DOI PMID |
| 4. | Research Group of Standardized Tertiary Rehabilitation Program in Cerebral Diseases P, Hu YS. Clinical study of standardized tertiary rehabilitation program in promoting upper and lower limbs motor function in stroke patients. Zhong Hua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007; 87: 2358-60. |
| 5. |
Ly J, Maquet P. Clinical management of acute stroke. Rev Med Liege 2018; 73: 333-7.
PMID |
| 6. |
Sarikaya H, Steinlin M. Cerebellar stroke in adults and children. Handb Clin Neurol 2018; 155: 301-12.
DOI PMID |
| 7. | Yu BH, Xing Y, Zhang F. The therapeutic effect of electroacupuncture therapy for ischemic stroke. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2020; 2020: 6415083. |
| 8. |
Zhan J, Pan R, Zhou M, et al. Electroacupuncture as an adjunctive therapy for motor dysfunction in acute stroke survivors: a systematic review and Meta-analyses. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e017153.
DOI URL |
| 9. |
Hsieh RL, Wang LY, Lee WC. Additional therapeutic effects of electroacupuncture in conjunction with conventional rehabilitation for patients with first-ever ischaemic stroke. J Rehabil Med 2007; 39: 205-11.
DOI URL |
| 10. |
Zhang S, Wu B, Liu M, et al. Acupuncture efficacy on ischemic stroke recovery: multicenter randomized controlled trial in China. Stroke 2015; 46: 1301-6.
DOI PMID |
| 11. |
Fu CH, Li KS, Ning YZ, et al. Altered effective connectivity of resting state networks by acupuncture stimulation in stroke patients with left hemiplegia: a multivariate granger analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e8897.
DOI URL |
| 12. | Wei NN, Pan JX, Chen YP, Chen Y. Effects of balance acupuncture combined with motor relearning for lower limb motor function of stroke patients with hemiplegia. Zhen Ci Yan Jiu 2018; 43:730-2. |
| 13. |
Chen L, Fang J, Ma R, et al. Additional effects of acupuncture on early comprehensive rehabilitation in patients with mild to moderate acute ischemic stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Complement Altern Med 2016; 16: 226.
DOI URL |
| 14. | Zhao DG, Mu JP. Clinical study on scalp acupuncture combined with sports therapy for rehabilitation of poststroke hemiplegia. Zhong Guo Zhen Jiu 2005; 25: 19-20. |
| 15. |
Seki K, Sato M, Handa Y. Increase of muscle activities in hemiplegic lower extremity during driving a cycling wheelchair. Tohoku J Exp Med 2009; 219: 129-38.
PMID |
| 16. | Fujiwara T, Liu M, Chino N. Effect of pedaling exercise on the hemiplegic lower limb. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 82: 357-63. |
| 17. | Klarner T, Barss TS, Sun Y, Kaupp C, Zehr EP. Preservation of common rhythmic locomotor control despite weakened supraspinal regulation after stroke. Front Integr Neurosci 2014; 8: 95. |
| 18. |
Tanuma A, Fujiwara T, Yamaguchi T, et al. After-effects of pedaling exercise on spinal excitability and spinal reciprocal inhibition in patients with chronic stroke. Int J Neurosci 2017; 127: 73-9.
PMID |
| 19. |
Teixeira-Salmela LF, Nadeau S, McBride I, Olney SJ. Effects of muscle strengthening and physical conditioning training on temporal, kinematic and kinetic variables during gait in chronic stroke survivors. J Rehabil Med 2001; 33: 53-60.
PMID |
| 20. | Tian L, Du X, Wang J, et al. Comparative study on the effects between manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture for hemiplegia after acute ischemic stroke. Zhong Guo Zhen Jiu 2016; 36: 1121-5. |
| 21. |
Kassee C, Hunt C, Holmes MWR, Lloyd M. Home-based Nintendo Wii training to improve upper-limb function in children ages 7 to 12 with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Rehabil Med 2017; 10: 145-54.
DOI PMID |
| 22. |
Kaupp C, Pearcey GEP, Klarner T, et al. Rhythmic arm cycling training improves walking and neurophysiological integrity in chronic stroke: the arms can give legs a helping hand in rehabilitation. J Neurophysiol 2018; 119: 1095-112.
DOI PMID |
| 23. | Stroke--1989. Recommendations on stroke prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Report of the WHO Task Force on Stroke and other Cerebrovascular Disorders. Stroke 1989; 20: 1407-31. |
| 24. |
Wittes J. Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials. Epidemiol Rev 2002; 24: 39-53.
DOI PMID |
| 25. |
Li FL, Huang GQ. Treatment of post-stroke spastic hemiplegia by acupuncture plus rehabilitation training. J Acupunct Tuina Sci 2013; 11: 235-9.
DOI URL |
| 26. | Vietnamese Ministry of Health. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of stroke online 2020, cited 2022-02-12. Available from URL: https://phacdodieutri.com/huong-dan-chan-doan-va-xu-tri-dot-quy-nao/. |
| 27. |
Cai Y, Zhang CS, Ouyang W, et al. Electroacupuncture for poststroke spasticity (EAPSS): protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e017912.
DOI URL |
| 28. |
Yang HC, Lee CL, Lin R, et al. Effect of biofeedback cycling training on functional recovery and walking ability of lower extremity in patients with stroke. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2014; 30: 35-42.
DOI URL |
| 29. |
Brown DA, Nagpal S, Chi S. Limb-loaded cycling program for locomotor intervention following stroke. Phys Ther 2005; 85: 159-68.
PMID |
| 30. | Wu P, Mills E, Moher D, Seely D. Acupuncture in poststroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized trials. Stroke 2010; 41: e171-9. |
| 31. |
Mao M, Chen X, Chen Y, Rao P, Liu J. Stage-oriented comprehensive acupuncture treatment plus rehabilitation training for apoplectic hemiplegia. J Tradit Chin Med 2008; 28: 90-3.
PMID |
| 32. |
Fan W, Kuang X, Hu J, et al. Acupuncture therapy for poststroke spastic hemiplegia: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Complement Ther Clin Pract 2020; 40: 101176.
DOI URL |
| 33. |
Zhuo Y, Xu M, Deng S, et al. Efficacy and safety of dissimilar acupuncture intervention time-points in treating stroke: a systematic review and network Meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med 2021; 10: 10196-212.
DOI PMID |
| 34. |
Lee SY, Kang SY, Im SH, et al. The effects of assisted ergometer training with a functional electrical stimulation on exercise capacity and functional ability in subacute stroke patients. Ann Rehabil Med 2013; 37: 619-27.
DOI PMID |
| 35. |
Dam M, Tonin P, Casson S, et al. The effects of long-term rehabilitation therapy on poststroke hemiplegic patients. Stroke 1993; 24: 1186-91.
PMID |
| 36. | Sandberg K, Kleist M, Wijkman M, Enthoven P. Effects of in-bed cycle exercise in patients with acute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl 2020; 2: 100085. |
| 37. |
Ning Y, Li K, Fu C, et al. Enhanced functional connectivity between the bilateral primary motor cortices after acupuncture at Yanglingquan (GB34) in right-hemispheric subcortical stroke patients: a resting-state fMRI study. Front Hum Neurosci 2017; 11: 178.
DOI PMID |
| 38. |
Kim SJ, Cho HY, Kim YL, Lee SM. Effects of stationary cycling exercise on the balance and gait abilities of chronic stroke patients. J Phys Ther Sci 2015; 27: 3529-31.
DOI URL |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
