Observação da ação na reabilitação do membro superior de pacientes com acidente vascular cerebral: uma revisão sistemática com metanálise

Background: stroke causes long-term impairments, limitation of activities and restriction in participation in daily life situations, especially for upper limb impairment (UL). Action Observation (AO) has been used for the rehabilitation of UL in these patients. It's a multisensory therapy which consists in observing a healthy subject performing a motor task, followed by physical practice. Objectives: assess whether the AO improves motor function of UL and dependence for activities of daily living (ADLs) of stroke patients or cause any adverse effects. Search methods: a search strategy was words and terms used for the identification of articles, in the following scientific basis Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; PsycINFO; CINAHL and LILACS. In addition to manual search of the references of articles and search for theses and dissertations in Portal Capes and LILACS. The identification of the studies was conducted from October to December 2015, being the last search on December 3. Selection criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving adults with stroke who had deficits in upper limb function and used AO as an intervention. Data collection and analysis: the data extracted from the studies were used to analyze the risk of bias, the effect of the treatment and the quality of the body of evidence. Main results: 6 studies were included, totaling 270 patients. The primary outcome analyzed was the motor function of MS. Were combined in meta-analyzes studies comparing AO versus placebo or an active control, considering the immediate and long-term effect (n=241). Regarding the motor function of the arm (5 trials), the estimated effect for the therapy was not significant. However, when considering the hand function estimating the effect was favorable to the group that conducted the AO, in short (mean difference = 6.93, 95% CI 1.48 to 12.39; P = 0.01) and long-term (mean difference = 7.57; 95% CI 1.34 the 13.80; p = 0.02). Unable to perform the analysis for functional dependency. The studies showed a low or uncertain risk of bias, but the quality of evidence the body was considered low and very low quality. Authors’ conclusions: AO was effective in improving hand function of stroke patients. Despite the low quality evidence that the use of OA in clinical practice should not be discouraged. RCT new studies should be conducted with greater methodological rigor and larger samples, covering important outcomes such as functional dependence for ADLs.