Neurological rehabilitation: From mechanisms to management

Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry

Volumn 69, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 718-722

  Thompson, Alan J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

N ACETYLASPARTIC ACID;

DISABILITY; DISEASE ACTIVITY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; INFLAMMATION; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PSYCHOMETRY; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 0033673535     PISSN: 00223050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.69.6.718     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Guidelines for clinical trials of new therapeutic agents in multiple sclerosis. Relations between study investigators, advisors, and sponsors. Neurology 1997;48:572-4.
2. O'Riordan JI, Thompson AJ, Kingsley DPE, et al. The prognostic value of brain MRI in clinically isolated syndromes of the CNS. Brain 1998;121:495-503.
3. Miller DH, Grossman RI, Reingold SC, et al. The role of magnetic resonance techniques in understanding and managing multiple sclerosis. Brain 1998;121:3-24.
4. Thompson AJ, Miller DH, MacManus DG, et al. Patterns of disease activity in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1990;301:44-5.
5. Thompson AJ, Kermode AG, Wicks D, et al. Major differences in the dynamics of primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1991;29:53-62.
6. Kidd D, Thorpe JW, Thompson AJ, et al. Spinal cord MRI using multi-array coils and fast spin echo. II. Findings in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1993;43:2632-7.
7. Kidd D, Thorpe JW, Kendall BE, et al. MRI dynamics of brain and spinal cord in progressive multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996;60:15-19.
8. Losseff NA, Webb SL, O'Riordan JI, et al. Spinal cord atrophy and disability in multiple sclerosis. A new reproducible and sensitive MRI method with potential to monitor disease progression. Brain 1996;119:701-8.
9. Stevenson VL, Leary SM, Losseff NA, et al. Spinal cord atrophy and disability in MS. A longitudinal study. Neurology 1998;51:234-8.
10. Losseff NA, Wang L, Lai HM, et al. Progressive cerebral atrophy in multiple sclerosis. A serial study. Brain 1996;119:2009-19.
11. Simon JH, Jacobs LD, Campion MK, et al. A longitudinal study of brain atrophy in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1999;53:139-48.
12. Fox NC, Jenkins R, Leary SM, et al. Progressive cerebral atrophy in MS. A serial study using registered, volumetric MRI. Neurology 2000;54:807-12.
13. Jagust WJ, Noseworthy JH. Brain atrophy as a surrogate marker in MS. Faster, simpler, better? Neurology 2000;54: 782-3.
14. Ferguson B, Matyszak MK, Esiri MM, et al. Axonal damage in acute multiple sclerosis lesions. Brain 1997;120:393-9.
15. Trapp BD, Peterson J, Ransohoff RM, et al. Axonal transaction in the lesions of multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:278-85.
16. Revesz T. Axonal lesions in multiple sclerosis: an old story revisited. Brain 2000;123:203-4.
17. Allen IV, Glover G, Anderson R. Abnormalities in the macroscopically normal white matter in cases of mild or spinal multiple sclerosis (MS). Acta Neurophathol 1981; VII(supp(Berl)):176-78.
18. Filippi M, Rocca MA, Martino G, et al. Magnetization transfer changes in the normal appearing white matter precede the appearance of enhancing lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1998;43:809-14.
19. Werring DJ, Clark CA, Barker GJ, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging of lesions and normal appearing white matter in MS. Neurology 1999;52:1626-32.
20. Davie CA, Barker GJ, Webb S, et al. Persistent functional deficit in multiple sclerosis and autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia is associated with axon loss. Brain 1995;118:1583-92.
21. Fu L, Matthews PM, De Stefano N, et al. Imaging axonal damage of normal-appearing white matter in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1998;121:103-13.
22. De Stefano N, Narayanan S, Matthews PM, et al. In vivo evidence for axonal dysfunction remote from focal cerebral demyelination of the type seen in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999;122:1933-9.
23. van Waesberghe JHTM, Kamphorst W, De Groot CJA, et al. Axonal loss in MS lesions: MR insights into substrates of disability. Ann Neurol 1999;46:747-54.
24. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444-52.
25. Guilford JP. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936.
26. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Thompson AJ. Evaluating neurological outcome measures: the bare essentials [editorial]. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996;60:127-30.
27. Freeman JA, Hobart JC, Langdon DW, et al. Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection: the 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;68:150-6.
28. World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980:449-508.
29. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index (BI). Maryland State Medical Journal 1965;14:61-5.
30. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, et al. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:870-5.
31. Harwood RH, Rogers A, Dickinson E, et al. Measuring handicap. London handicap scale, a new outcome measure for chronic disease. Quality in Health Care 1994;3:11-16.
32. Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, et al. Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1997;314:1580-3.
33. Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Lamping DL. Physician and patient-oriented outcomes in progressive neurological disease: which to measure? Curr Opin Neurol 1996;9:441-4.
34. Vickrey BG. Getting oriented to patient-oriented outcomes. Neurology 1999;53:662-3.
35. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
36. Hobart J, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000;123:1027-10.
37. Van der Putten JJMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, et al. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and functional independence measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:480-4.
38. Hobart J, Lamping D, Freeman J, et al. Measuring neurology: Is bigger better? Comparative measurement properties of the functional independence measure (FIM) and Barthel index. Neurology 1997;48:A235.
39. Hobart JC, van der Putten JJ, Freeman JA, et al. Development and testing of a short form Barthel Index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;67:264.
40. Hobart JC, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Patient based outcome measures for multiple sclerosis are needed and can be developed. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69: 000-000 (in press).
41. Langhorne P, Dennis M. eds. Stroke units: an evidence based approach. London: BMJ, 1998.
42. Thompson AJ. Rehabilitation of progressive neurological disorders: a worthwhile challenge. Curr Opin Neurol 1996; 9:437-40.
43. Thompson AJ. The effectiveness of neurological rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2000 (in press).
44. Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. International MS Journal 1998;5:16-23.
45. Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, et al. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1997;42:236-44.
46. Freeman JA, Langdon DW, Hobart JC, et al. Inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: do the benefits carry over into the community? Neurology 1999;52:50-6.
47. Solari A, Filippini G, Gasco P, et al. Physical rehabilitation has a positive effect on disability in multiple sclerosis patients. Neurology 1999;52:57-62.
48. Aisen ML. Justifying neurorehabilitation: a few steps forward. Neurology 1999;52:8-10.
49. Kraft GH. Rehabilitation still the only way to improve function in multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1999;354:2016-17.
50. Stroke care. A matter of chance: a national survey of stroke services. London: The Stroke Association, 1999.
51. Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Community services in multiple sclerosis: still a matter of chance. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69:728-32.
52. McLellan DL, Martin JR, Roberts MHW, et al. Multiple sclerosis in the Southampton district. Southampton: University of Southampton: Rehabilitation Research Unit and Department of Sociology and Social Policy, 1989. (Technical report 2. ISNB 085432318X.)
53. Lee M, Reddy H, Johansen-Berg H, et al. The motor cortex shows adaptive functional changes to brain injury from multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2000;47:606-13.
54. Werring DJ, Bullmore ET, Toosy AT, et al. Recovery from optic neuritis is associated with a change in the distribution of cerebral response to visual stimulation: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;68:441-9.
55. Werring DJ, Clark CA, Barker GJ, et al. The structural and functional mechanisms of motor recovery: complementary use of diffusion tensor and functional magnetic resonance imaging in a traumatic injury of the internal capsule. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998;65:863-9.