Objective: Retraining of sensory function following stroke is frequently overlooked in rehabilitation protocols despite more than 60% of patients presenting with sensory deficits. Methods to train sensory function include both passive and active training protocols. Here we examined the volume and quality of the evidence available for both passive and active sensory training following stroke. In addition, we aimed to quantify the effect of sensory training on impairment and function.
Data sources: Databases searched included MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, Academic search elite, Scopus and the Cochrane library. Unpublished articles were identified using a search engine.
Review methods: Studies utilizing passive or active sensory training paradigms post stroke were identified. Methodological quality was examined using the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence and the McMaster University critical appraisal tool.
Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria; 8 examined passive and 6 active sensory training. Methodological quality scores ranged from 11 to 18.5 (maximum 20). Meta-analysis was performed using three studies examining hand function, demonstrating a moderate effect in favour of passive sensory training. Other studies were unable to be pooled due to heterogeneity of measures or insufficient data.
Conclusion: Meta-analyses and single studies offer some support for the effectiveness of passive sensory training in relation to sensory impairment and motor function. However, empirical evidence for active sensory training is limited. Further high-quality studies with greater statistical power and meaningful clinical measures are required in order to accurately determine the effectiveness of sensory retraining following stroke.