Through this study we compare the the effects of motor relearning program and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on upper limb motor performance and quality of life in sub-acute stroke survivors. This study will be a randomized controlled trial will recruit a sample of 39 participants through non-probability consecutive sampling technique. After satisfying the inclusion criteria, participants will be divided into three groups. The first group will receive motor relearning program for 6 weeks, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, along with the conventional therapy. The second group will receive proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for 6 weeks, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, along with conventional therapy. The third group will only receive conventional the conventional therapy.

One study revealed that both PNF and CIMT were effective in the management of upper limb chronic post- stroke patients. However, CIMT is the preferred technique for upper limb function recovery.

Another experimental study was conducted on comparison between proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation versus mirror therapy enhances gait and balance in paretic lower limb in acute stroke. In this study patients are randomly divided into two groups. According to statistical analysis this study shows that both the techniques Group A (Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation) and Group B (Mirror Therapy) were individually effective in improving gait and balance. While comparing both the techniques there is a significant difference present in the group. So, Group A is more effective in enhancing gait and balance in paretic lower limb after acute Stroke.

Another randomized control trial was conducted on comparing the effects of motor relearning programs and mirror therapy for improving upper limb motor function in stroke patient. This study concluded that MRP and MT were found to be effective in improving upper limb motor function of stroke patients, but the former was more effective than the later.

Another comparative study was conducted on motor relearning program versus proprioceptive neuro-muscular facilitation technique for improving basic mobility in chronic stroke patients- According to the results he concluded that MRP is more effective then PNF for improving basic mobility of sit to stand and walking in chronic stroke subjects and subjects were able to maintain their basic mobility at one month follow up also.

Previous studies have compared only a single intervention with controls; however, this study aims to compare two different interventions in addition to comparison with the control groups.

All these interventions previously used focus on the functional activities as a training component after stroke and have shown some degree of improvement in the functional outcome of the upper limb, but still, there is a paucity of literature on which intervention improves motor performance in an optimum timeframe during the subacute phase of stroke.

Given this gap in the literature, a study is needed to elucidate the comparative effects of motor relearning program and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation on upper limb motor performance and quality of life in sub-acute stroke survivors.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Age between 40-70 years are included.
• Both genders are included
• Hemiplegic ischemic stroke of both sides
• Participants with sub-acute Stroke (from 1 week to 6 months).
• Non- aphasic stroke patients.
• Clinically stable patients.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Recurrent Stroke
• Patients with other neurological conditions and deficits.
• Patients with other orthopedic condition like frozen shoulder or unhealed fracture of upper limb.

Blinded (or "masked") studies are those in which the subjects, and possibly the investigators as well, are unaware of which treatment the subject is receiving, e.g., active drug or placebo. Blinding is particularly important in drug trials when the study is assessing subjective outcomes, such as relief of pain or anxiety.

It isn't always possible to mask the treatments. For example, subjects randomly assigned to follow either a specific exercise regimen or continue their usual level of activity cannot be blinded.

Single-blinded: the subjects are unaware of which group they have been assigned to.

Double-blinded: Neither the subjects nor the investigators are aware of the treatment assignment until the end of the trial.