Moving rehabilitation research forward: Developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 454-458

  Bernhardt, Julie ^a,b   Borschmann, Karen ^a,b   Boyd, Lara ^c   Carmichael, S Thomas ^d   Corbett, Dale ^e   Cramer, Steven C ^f   Hoffmann, Tammy ^g   Kwakkel, Gert ^h   Savitz, Sean I ⁱ   Saposnik, Gustavo ^j,k   Walker, Marion ^l   Ward, Nick ^m,n  

^a NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery   (Australia)

^b FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^h VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^k ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^l UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^m UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ NATIONAL HOSPITAL FOR NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Consensus; Neurobiology; Recommendations; Recovery; Rehabilitation; Stroke

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COGNITIVE REHABILITATION; CONNECTOME; EVOKED MUSCLE RESPONSE; GENE INTERACTION; HUMAN; LIFESTYLE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NERVE CELL PLASTICITY; NONHUMAN; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEX DIFFERENCE; TIME TO TREATMENT; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; ANIMAL; BRAIN; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; METABOLISM; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; STROKE; STROKE REHABILITATION;

ANIMALS; BIOMARKERS; BRAIN; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; STROKE; STROKE REHABILITATION;

EID: 84964579694     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1747493016643851     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Hachinski V, Donnan GA, Gorelick PB, et al. Stroke: working toward a prioritized world agenda. Int J Stroke 2010; 5: 238-256.
2. Fisher M, Feuerstein G, Howells DW, et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations. Stroke 2009; 40: 2244-2250.
3. Hoffmann TC and Walker MF. 'TIDieR-ing up' the reporting of interventions in stroke research: the importance of knowing what is in the 'black box'. Int J Stroke 2015; 10: 657-658.
4. Walker MF, Fisher RJ, Korner-Bitensky N, McCluskey A and Carey LM. From what we know to what we do: translating stroke rehabilitation research into practice. Int J Stroke 2013; 8: 11-17.
5. Savitz SI, Cramer SC and Wechsler L. Stem cells as an emerging paradigm in stroke 3: enhancing the development of clinical trials. Stroke 2014; 45: 634-639.
6. Ali M, English C, Bernhardt J, Sunnerhagen KS and and Brady M Collaboration VI-R. More outcomes than trials: a call for consistent data collection across stroke rehabilitation trials. Int J Stroke 2013; 8: 18-24.
7. Murphy TH and Corbett D. Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009; 10: 861-872.
8. Carmichael ST. Emergent properties of neural repair: elemental biology to therapeutic concepts. Annal Neurol 2016; In press.
9. Carmichael ST. Brain excitability in stroke: the yin and yang of stroke progression. Arch Neurol 2012; 69: 161-167.
10. Carmichael ST. Rodent models of focal stroke: size, mechanism, and purpose. NeuroRx 2005; 2: 396-409.
11. Corbett D, Jeffers M, Nguemeni C, Gomez-Smith M and Livingston-Thomas J. Lost in translation: rethinking approaches to stroke recovery. Prog Brain Res 2015; 218: 413-434.
12. O'Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH and Howells DW. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann Neurol 2006; 59: 467-477.
13. Dirnagl U. Bench to bedside: the quest for quality in experimental stroke research. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2006; 26: 1465-1478.
14. Kimmelman J, Mogil JS and Dirnagl U. Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLoS Biol 2014; 12: e1001863.
15. Zeiler SR and Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol 2013; 26: 609-616.
16. Burke E and Cramer SC. Biomarkers and predictors of restorative therapy effects after stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2013; 13: 329.
17. Wadden KP, Woodward TS, Metzak PD, et al. Compensatory motor network connectivity is associated with motor sequence learning after subcortical stroke. Behav Brain Res 2015; 286: 136-145.
18. Di Luca M, Baker M, Corradetti R, et al. Consensus document on European brain research. Eur J Neurosci 2011; 33: 768-818.
19. Mang CS, Borich MR, Brodie SM, et al. Diffusion imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation assessment of transcallosal pathways in chronic stroke. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126: 1959-1971.
20. Borich MR, Mackay AL, Vavasour IM, Rauscher A and Boyd LA. Evaluation of white matter myelin water fraction in chronic stroke. NeuroImage Clin 2013; 2: 569-580.
21. Diaz-Arrastia R, Wang KK, Papa L, et al. Acute biomarkers of traumatic brain injury: relationship between plasma levels of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 and glial fibrillary acidic protein. J Neurotrauma 2014; 31: 19-25.
22. Fiandaca MS, Mapstone ME, Cheema AK and Federoff HJ. The critical need for defining preclinical biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Dement 2014; 10(3 Suppl): S196-S212.
23. Dromerick AW, Edwardson MA, Edwards DF, et al. Critical periods after stroke study: translating animal stroke recovery experiments into a clinical trial. Front Hum Neurosci 2015; 9: 231.
24. Pearson-Fuhrhop K, Burke E and Cramer S. The influence of genetic factors on brain plasticity and recovery after neural injury. Curr Opin Neurol 2012; 25: 682-688.
25. Mang CS, Campbell KL, Ross CJ and Boyd LA. Promoting neuroplasticity for motor rehabilitation after stroke: considering the effects of aerobic exercise and genetic variation on brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Phys Ther 2013; 93: 1707-1716.
26. Carey LM, Crewther S, Salvado O, et al. STroke imAging pRevention and treatment (START): a longitudinal stroke cohort study: clinical trials protocol. Int J Stroke 2015; 10: 636-644.
27. Di Lazzaro V, Pellegrino G, Di Pino G, et al. Val66Met BDNF gene polymorphism influences human motor cortex plasticity in acute stroke. Brain Stimul 2015; 8: 92-96.
28. Burke E, Dobkin BH, Noser EA, Enney LA and Cramer SC. Predictors and biomarkers of treatment gains in a clinical stroke trial targeting the lower extremity. Stroke 2014; 45: 2379-2384.
29. Corbetta M, Ramsey L, Callejas A, et al. Common behavioral clusters and subcortical anatomy in stroke. Neuron 2015; 85: 927-941.
30. Stinear C, Barber P, Coxon J, Fleming Mand Byblow W. Priming the motor system enhances the effects of upper limb therapy in chronic stroke. Brain 2008; 131(Pt 5): 1381-1390.
31. Wu J, Quinlan EB, Dodakian L, McKenzie A, et al. Connectivity measures are robust biomarkers of cortical function and plasticity after stroke. Brain 2015; 138(Pt 8): 2359-2369.
32. Murase N, Duque J, Mazzocchio R and Cohen LG. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol 2004; 55: 400-409.
33. Stinear C, Barber P, Smale P, Coxon J, Fleming M and Byblow W. Functional potential in chronic stroke patients depends on corticospinal tract integrity. Brain 2007; 130(Pt 1): 170-180.
34. Stinear C, Barber P, Petoe M, Anwar S and Byblow W. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain 2012; 135(Pt 8): 2527-2535.
35. Kwakkel G and Kollen B. Predicting activities after stroke: what is clinically relevant? Int J Stroke 2013; 8: 25-32.
36. Hoffmann TC, Walker MF, Langhorne P, Eames S, Thomas E and Glasziou P. What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e009051.
37. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I and Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655.
38. Dite W, Langford ZN, Cumming TB, Churilov L, Blennerhassett JM and Bernhardt J. A Phase 1 exercise dose escalation study for stroke survivors with impaired walking. Int J Stroke 2015; 10: 1051-1056.
39. Bernhardt J, Churilov L, Ellery F, et al. Prespecified dose-response analysis for A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT). Neurology. Epub ahead of print 19 February 2016.
40. Batalden M, Batalden P, Margolis P, Seid M, et al. Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Qual Saf. Epub ahead of print 18 September 2015.
41. Poltawski L, Norris M and Dean S. Intervention fidelity: developing an experience-based model for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2014; 46: 609-615.
42. Masterson-Algar P, Burton CR, Rycroft-Malone J, Sackley CM and Walker MF. Towards a programme theory for fidelity in the evaluation of complex interventions. J Eval Clin Pract 2014; 20: 445-452.
43. Collier JM and Bernhardt J. The therapy 'pill': achieving treatment dose within a rehabilitation trial. Brain Impairment 2008; 9: 191-197.
44. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348: g1687.
45. Veerbeek J, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9: e87987.
46. Buma F, Kwakkel G and Ramsey N. Understanding upper limb recovery after stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2013; 31: 707-722.
47. Levin MF, Kleim JA and Wolf SL. What do motor ''recovery'' and ''compensation'' mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 313-319.
48. Yozbatiran N, Der-Yeghiaian L and Cramer SC. A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2008; 22: 78-90.
49. See J, Dodakian L, Chou C, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013; 27: 732-741.