↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
9 X users
2 Facebook pages
3 Wikipedia pages


173 Dimensions

Readers on

658 Mendeley
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 658 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 652 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 117 18%
Student > Bachelor 116 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 9%
Researcher 35 5%
Student > Postgraduate 24 4%
Other 85 13%
Unknown 221 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 144 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 122 19%
Neuroscience 43 7%
Engineering 22 3%
Social Sciences 16 2%
Other 73 11%
Unknown 238 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 01 December 2022.
All research outputs
of 25,864,668 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 291,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,864,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 291,040 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 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 59% of its contemporaries.