# Mirror Therapy Versus Motor Imagery in Stroke Neurorehabilitation: A Systematic Review with Comparative Narrative Synthesis

## TL;DR

This review compares mirror therapy and motor imagery for stroke recovery, finding both methods equally effective but lacking strong evidence for one being better.

## Contribution

The study provides a systematic comparison of mirror therapy and motor imagery in stroke rehabilitation, highlighting the lack of robust evidence for superiority of either method.

## Key findings

- Both mirror therapy and motor imagery showed significant improvements in motor function and functional performance.
- No consistent evidence supports one intervention over the other for overall outcomes.
- Isolated advantages of motor imagery were found for specific upper-limb subdomains but were not consistently replicated.

## Abstract

Background: Motor imagery (MI) and mirror therapy (MT) are widely used neurorehabilitation strategies to enhance motor recovery after stroke and are commonly applied as adjuncts to conventional rehabilitation therapy (CRT). However, direct comparative evidence between these interventions remains limited. This systematic review compared the effects of MI and MT on motor function, functional performance, spasticity, and gait-related outcomes in adults after stroke. Methods: A systematic comparative review with narrative synthesis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251274308). PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were searched up to July 2025. Clinical trials directly comparing MI and MT in adults with stroke were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Results: Six clinical trials involving 206 participants were included. Both MI and MT were associated with significant pre–post improvements across motor function, functional performance, spasticity, and gait-related outcomes. Between-group comparisons yielded heterogeneous findings, with no consistent evidence supporting the superiority of either intervention. Isolated advantages of MI were reported for specific upper-limb subdomains, but these effects were not consistently replicated. Overall methodological quality ranged from low to moderate, and all included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias according to the RoB 2 tool. Conclusions: MI and MT appear to provide comparable benefits for motor and functional recovery after stroke when used as adjuncts to CRT. Current evidence does not support the preferential use of one intervention, highlighting the need for well-designed trials with improved methodological rigor.