Author (year) Sample size Subjects’ characteristics Study design MT group Control intervention MT protocol Outcome measures Findings Total sessions Hours of exposure to mirror/week Type of exercise Size of mirror (cm) Body structure/function Activity Colomer et al. (2016) [17 ] 31 Age: RCT UMT Passive mobilisation 24 2 hrs 15 mins Simple exercise Not stated FMA WMFT MT group provided a similar motor improvement Choi et al. (2019) [57 ] 36 Age: RCT (1) BMT ST 15 1 hr 30 mins Simple exercise Not stated MFT — The difference between conventional MT and CG significant in MFT Arya et al. (2015) [18 ] 33 Age: Pilot RCT UMT CT 40 3 hrs 45 mins Functional task FMA — MT group exhibited highly significant improvement on FMA scores Guo et al. (2019) [24 ] 120 Age: RCT (1) UMT (1) ESWT 20 1 hr 40 mins Simple exercise FMA — MT combined with ESWT produced greater improvement in upper extremity motor performance than MT alone Arya et al. (2018) [21 ] 31 Age: RCT UMT and BMT CT 30 3 hrs 20 mins Simple exercise/functional task FMA — FMA scores significantly increase in the MT group compared to control Park et al. (2015) [25 ] 30 Age: RCT UMT ST 20 2 hrs 30 mins Simple exercise Not stated FMA BBT MT group significantly improved on upper-extremity function and activities of daily living compared to CG Michielsen et al. (2011) [30 ] 40 Age: RCT BMT Bilateral training 30 5 hrs Simple exercise Not stated FMA ARAT FMA improved more in the MT group than CG. No sig. difference in ARAT and ABILHAND Gurbuz et al. (2016) [26 ] 31 Age: RCT UMT ST 20 1 hr 40 mins Simple exercise Not stated FMA FIM FMA score higher in the MT group than CG Lin et al. (2014) [31 ] 43 Age: RCT (1) BMT CT 20 5 hrs Simple exercise Not stated FMA BBT Oliviera et al. (2018) [58 ] 21 Age: 60.1 Pilot quasi experimental BMT (1) VG 12 1 hr Simple exercise Not stated Rivermead Mobility Index WMFT Significant findings were observed for MT or VT group when compared to the CG, obtaining improvements in all three functional tests Lee et al. (2015) [19 ] 48 Age: RCT (1) BMT — 20 5 hrs Simple exercise FMA BBT No significant group differences in the FMA, rNSA. For BBT and FIM, MT+MG improved more than MT group Kim et al. (2016) [27 ] 25 Age: RCT UMT CT 20 2 hrs 30 mins Functional task FMA ARAT MT group showed significant improvements compared to CG, both in body structure/function and activity domain Lin et al. (2014) [32 ] 16 Age: 55.64 RCT: pilot study (1) BMT 20 5 hrs Simple exercise Not stated MAS BBT BBT, grasping scales ARAT, FIM presented significantly large effects in favour of MT+MG group Shaker et al. (2020) [59 ] 30 Age: Case control BMT CT 24 1 hr 15 mins Simple exercise 35×35 ROM (goniometer) JHFT MT group improved significantly in ROM, hand strength and JHFT compared to CG Chinnavan et al. (2020) [28 ] 25 Age: 45 to 65 years old Quasi experimental UMT CT 18 45 mins Simple exercise Not stated FMA FIM There is significant improvement in MT group compared to CG in both domains. Ji et al. (2014) [29 ] 35 Age: RCT (1) UMT ST 30 2 hrs 30 mins Simple exercise FMA BBT MT+rTMS more effective to improve upper extremity function, than MT group and CG Wu et al. (2013) [20 ] 33 Age: RCT BMT CT 20 5 hrs Simple exercise Not stated FMA MAL FMA showed sig. and large to moderate effects favouring the MT group. No sig. differences on MAL and ABILHAND
