Efficacy of Multimodal Sensory Therapy in Adult Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review

Neuropsychology Review

Norwood, M. F., Lakhani, A., et al. (2023).

Neuropsychology Review, 33(4), 693-713.

<div>This systematic review explores the effects of multimodal sensory stimulation therapies for adults with aquired brain injury (ABI) with and without coma.</div>

No funding received

From database inception to July 2021

<div>Peer-reviewed studies of any design</div>

43

<div>Multimodal sensory simulation demonstrated positive effects for adults with ABI both with and without coma. Specific findings included:</div> <ul> <li><span style="color: #333333;"><strong>Comatose and Minimally Conscious Patients:</strong> Multimodal stimulation improved arousal. These individuals may benefit from high frequency and less intense stimulation. </span></li> <li><span style="color: #333333;"><strong>Non-Comatose Patients:</strong> In some studies, sensory stimulation resulted in improved sensation and motor control in affected limbs. These gains were generally maintained after several months. For these individuals, high frequency stimulation targeting physical movement may promote better outcomes.&nbsp;</span></li> <li><span style="color: #333333;"><strong>Personalization:</strong> Preferred music improved patient responsiveness when compared to neutral music (1 study). Programs delivered by family members improved outcomes when compared to those delivered by clinical staff (4 studies).&nbsp;</span></li> <li><span style="color: #333333;"><strong>Outdoor Settings:</strong> One study reported improved outcomes for interventions embedded within outdoor, natural settings when compared to therapies delivered indoor. </span></li> </ul> <div><span style="color: #333333;">There was not enough evidence to strongly recommend the wide-spread use of multisensory stimulation for these individuals. However, negative outcomes and adverse events were rarely reported in the literature.&nbsp;<br><br>Limitations to this review include heterogeneity between studies (i.e., differences between studies regarding treatment protocols and measured outcomes), an over-representation of males, lack of reporting of effect sizes, and an overall lack of recent, high-quality evidence.&nbsp;</span></div>