↓ Skip to main content

Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in people with stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
24 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
2 Wikipedia pages


88 Dimensions

Readers on

381 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in people with stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004433.pub3
Pubmed ID

Davide Corbetta, Valeria Sirtori, Greta Castellini, Lorenzo Moja, Roberto Gatti


In people who have had a stroke, upper limb paresis affects many activities of daily life. Reducing disability is therefore a major aim of rehabilitative interventions. Despite preserving or recovering movement ability after stroke, sometimes people do not fully realise this ability in their everyday activities. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is an approach to stroke rehabilitation that involves the forced use and massed practice of the affected arm by restraining the unaffected arm. This has been proposed as a useful tool for recovering abilities in everyday activities. To assess the efficacy of CIMT, modified CIMT (mCIMT), or forced use (FU) for arm management in people with hemiparesis after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), CINAHL (1982 to January 2015), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; January 2015). Randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing CIMT, mCIMT or FU with other rehabilitative techniques, or none. One author identified trials from the results of the electronic searches according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, three review authors independently assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcome was disability. We included 42 studies involving 1453 participants. The trials included participants who had some residual motor power of the paretic arm, the potential for further motor recovery and with limited pain or spasticity, but tended to use the limb little, if at all. The majority of studies were underpowered (median number of included participants was 29) and we cannot rule out small-trial bias. Eleven trials (344 participants) assessed disability immediately after the intervention, indicating a non-significant standard mean difference (SMD) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05 to 0.52) favouring CIMT compared with conventional treatment. For the most frequently reported outcome, arm motor function (28 studies involving 858 participants), the SMD was 0.34 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.55) showing a significant effect (P value 0.004) in favour of CIMT. Three studies involving 125 participants explored disability after a few months of follow-up and found no significant difference, SMD -0.20 (95% CI -0.57 to 0.16) in favour of conventional treatment. CIMT is a multi-faceted intervention where restriction of the less affected limb is accompanied by increased exercise tailored to the person's capacity. We found that CIMT was associated with limited improvements in motor impairment and motor function, but that these benefits did not convincingly reduce disability. This differs from the result of our previous meta-analysis where there was a suggestion that CIMT might be superior to traditional rehabilitation. Information about the long-term effects of CIMT is scarce. Further trials studying the relationship between participant characteristics and improved outcomes are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 381 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 375 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 90 24%
Student > Bachelor 71 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 12%
Researcher 28 7%
Student > Postgraduate 16 4%
Other 53 14%
Unknown 76 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 95 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 93 24%
Neuroscience 34 9%
Engineering 14 4%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Other 46 12%
Unknown 87 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,651,463 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 255,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,651,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.