Click here for all Stroke Engine websites

Mirror Therapy

Quick Review of Effectiveness

NOTE: When reviewing the findings in the quick review table it is important to note that they are always made according to randomized clinical trial (RCT) criteria - specifically as compared to a control group. To clarify, if a treatment is “effective” it implies that it is more effective than the control treatment to which it was compared.

Nine studies, 6 high quality RCTs, 1 fair quality RCT and 2 pre-post design studies have investigated the effect of mirror therapy post-stroke. Specifically, studies have investigated the effectiveness on upper and lower extremity function in the sub-acute phase, and upper extremity function, quality of life and cortical reorganization in the chronic phase. A systematic review by Ezendam, Bongers and Jannink (2009) reviews 5 studies specific to mirror therapy intervention in a stroke population – 4 of these are examined in this module; the 5th study has not been included as it is not available in English. A more recent systematic review by Rothgangel et al (2011) included a 6th RCT, which is included in this module, along with 4 poor quality studies, 2 of which do not appear in this module as they are not available in English.

Purpose Findings Level of Evidence
SUBACUTE PHASE OF STROKE RECOVERY
Attention to the affected arm Effective 1b
Functional independence Conflicting 4
Lower extremity function Effective 1b
Upper limb motor function Not effective 1b
Upper limb motor recovery Effective 1b
Upper limb sensorimotor function Not effective 1a
Upper limb spasticity Not effective 1b
CHRONIC PHASE OF STROKE RECOVERY
Cortical reorganization Effective 1b
Grip force Not effective 1b
Motor capacity Not effective 1b
Motor function Effective 1b
Pain Not effective 1b
Performance Conflicting 4
Quality of life Not effective 1b
Spasticity Not effective 1b